Steven Hawking was certainly a brilliant mind, though his contributions to fundamental physics cannot be compared to a Newton or Dirac. The marketing of the brand "Hawking" then prompts some questions...
I have a really big mouth, too. So, believe me, it is not at all so difficult to point an ass out of scores of prominent wild ponies and vice versa. The ridiculous nonsense in latter-day physics is a reflection of, and precursor of, the inevitable decay of civilization.
@@nkchenjx I can't even begin to imagine what it's like to live under the heel of gl****o*o allowed science, but I sympathize heavily with those who have to bear this
Most physics research depends on political charity. The big problem is the distribution of funding by grants. There is also information hiding. For example, for a long time our government supressed research on quaternions, If someone did original research on quaternions for a masters thesis, the government made sure it did not get indexed. In their hubris, they were sure the Soviets couldn't figure out the trajectories for ICBMs if we didn't talk about quaternions in the literature. If you find one of these rare papers, the bibliography will likely have only Hamilton's original paper and a few more no later than 1950. They stopped this when our own people started dying due to guidance computer failures on interceptors that would maneuver through the pole of the local coordinate system, generate a divide by zero error and reboot. Intercept failed, people died. Eventually, they realized that the Soviets had figured things out a long time ago and we were just shooting ourselves in the foot. The equivalent of friendly fire.
It's great to hear how life is in the "land of the free". The US now makes the same mistake in their chip war on China, assuming China is not capable of figuring out how to produce chips of their own. Now there is panic as China has developed their own 28nm lithography machine and within a few years may flood the world with their cheap and possibly even better chips. It just shows the unbelievable arrogance that is blinding the US for reality.
I agree with absolutely every word of this, and I applaud you for producing it. I've only recently found your channel, and you seem to be on exactly the right track about most everyone else being on the wrong track.
Thank you for expressing so clearly and concisely my same objections. I am glad to have somebody who can articulate them far better and more briefly than I.
The lure of celebrity seems too tempting to resist for many of these people and their agents. It seems also that almost all their fans have no idea what they're talking about.
Every time one of these little twerps sends a 🤣😂 when I tell them Einstein was overhyped, it convinces me that guy with the mustache had some good ideas.
Around 11:00 you talk about the theoretical assumptions on the photo of the Black Hole. Have you done a video on that? Or could you please mention me one on the issue?
Here is a good anaysis by Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kI14fpM3ouU.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Iz8RRN8rY00.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yc9PB_4F-OU.html
@@TheMachian That would be fun . You would be doing a service to science with a series like that :) I nominate:: Tyson , Nye , Cox , Kaku. Krauss, Greene, "Bill Gates" :)
@@decadent. You didn't name any scientists...these are mostly SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS which have the job of popularizing Science...🙄 Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist working in a highly theoretical field. Lawrence Krauss? A very respected teacher before the alligations...his work for scientific american in the 80ies and 90ies also highly respected. " Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a variety of topics within that field. In 1995 he proposed that the energy-density of the universe was dominated by the energy of empty space.[38] In 1998 this prediction was confirmed by two observational collaborations and in 2011 the Nobel Prize was awarded for their discovery." I don't see how he belongs in your list except you have issues with his militant atheism. academictree.org/physics/publications.php?pid=170688
What do you think of Arps theories of active galactic nuclei producing new matter and ejecting quasars? And the idea that black holes i.e. the galactic nuclei being counter-spacial sinks and the voltage potential of the galaxy in a Plasma(electric) Cosmology?
It's the future of Cosmology. The Thunderbolts Project RU-vid channel has been making predictions over the last ten years that have continually been confirmed by new observation. Of course they've been ignored by academia but that can't last forever.
I'm really interested in the Schwarzschild radius 'density problem' talked about in this video, but I was not able to discern the argument being made. What exactly is the contradiction or the inconsistency which it reveals? Is this covered somewhere else? I like this channel so much because it goes against the grain, but the problem is when you go to Google to get more information, the search results are all from the mainstream perspective. So it's almost impossible to find helpful sources when this channel needs added explanation.
Ok, the idea would be if all the mass and energy of the universe filled a bounded subset of the space R^3, and light tried to escape from it, it shouldn't be able to. I don't think that there is a serious claim of our universe having an edge. It could be curved hypersurface "ending into itself", but then there is no inside, no outside, and nowhere to draw a Schwarzshield radius around. Even if the universe is massive and small enough to trap light, the light is pulled equally from all sides and hence can escape the pull of mass, hence there is apparently no paradoxon at all. Still, it is a cool concept.
I don’t think there’s an actual problem here. It’s easy to see why larger black holes can be less dense. The more mass a thing has, the less dense it needs to be to have a particular strength of gravity. Hence Jupiter has over 2.5x the gravity of Earth while having less than a quarter of the density. And I don’t see anything wrong with the idea that the universe itself might be a black hole (or inside of one). That would be fascinating and would lend support to Lee Smolin’s hypothesis of cosmic natural selection. Regarding the thing about a swimming pool the size of the solar system being a black hole, I have no idea what he’s talking about there.
@@GumbyTheGreen1 He means that if you filled the volume of the solar system with water, it would rapidly collapse into a truly massive black hole. Heck if the solar system's volume was filled just with air, that would already be enough to collapse into a black hole
@@PythonerWell supposedly it wouldn't collapse, because it would not experience the flow of time. The Schwartschild radius would be the radius of the solar system if it was a sphere filled with water. But it would be frozen in time.
creepy - can you imagine being locked-in like Hawking and have someone abuse you routinely while being completely helpless to stop it. You couldnt even reach out to others without her carting you away or unplugging your voicebox
Hawking shouldn't have messed his first family and himself up by deeply betraying the man (his neighbor) who modified his wheelchair so that he could speak with the help of the speaking device whenever he wanted(The speaking device was someone else's invention, I read somewhere later). Hawking divorced his first wife, to go adulterate with his neighbor's wife, leaving both families' kids in total betrayal besides the wronged husband and his first wife. (This is what I heard, many years ago (my father was a physics professor in the States, as were other relatives, and his older students and friends)).
I read a 'A Brief History of Time' 30 years ago as a teenager. Years before academic studies. To that time I had all my plans pointed at astrophysics. After having read that book I quit all my plans and change to biology, chemistry and environmental science in general. Sorry guys, there is no content in this book. I realized, it is peculiar field of science with no logic inside. It took me over 20 years to come back but I did it when such people Like Unzicker and many others show up in my life. There is one important rule in modern world. The more the topic is talked about the less valuable it is.
I'm just gonna say it: I have very, very serious doubts about his capacity to write the many of the books that he did. There was a long stretch of time where he could only communicate with blinking to generate a small number of words per hour. I think it's extremely likely that much of his later works, as well as many of the "speeches" he gave through his iconically robotic sounding speech generator were ghostwritten and that certain scientific minds were definitely using his celebrity and influence to push ideas in his name - with or without his consent. It's existentially horrifying to consider, but it's nevertheless something any rational person must. How would anyone know if he was? Would we even know if he objected to what was being said in his name? It's not as if he could protest in any way. Thus, it's entirely possible that he was a total prisoner in his own body, calling out for help as his handlers trotted him out again and again to push their agendas - what could he have done to stop anyone from doing so? If this was the case, then he was an abused celebrity, indeed. EDIT: I started typing this before I got to the end of the video - you're the first person who's discussed the issue that mamy of works were most likely ghostwritten. Well done - I obviously agree!
Well said if not understated. If what you’ve theorized is even partially accurate, “abused” hardly begins to describe this celebrity. I feel like your earlier phrasing “existentially horrifying” was a comprehensive, yet concise description of Hawkins’ possible existence.
I think this may be a bit of a stretch; though he could not move much, Hawking did have control of facial muscles and made obvious facial gestures, including smiling. He would smile in time to jokes as his "voice" spoke them. It is possible that many or all of his books and public speeches/interviews/appearances were ghostwritten, but I doubt it was without his consent. It could also just be some Stockholm syndrome or whatever, people are weird and can seem happy even under duress. But I really doubt he was a literal captive, a human cash cow being wheeled around for money. That is very illegal, which hasn't stopped people before, but someone would have said something, surely. He did sit around and chat with other physicists and work on physics problems with them in documentaries, and these are real physicists, and he didn't seem controlled or anything
WOW! He said the quiet part out loud; where everyone could hear it. Someone tell him “that’s not polite.“. I often wondered if Hawkins’’ peer group secretly resented the seemingly disproportionate press to accomplishment ratio Stephen Hawkins’ received. It’s actually refreshing to hear someone saying this out loud while still maintaining respect. Yes of course Hawkins was a genius who contributed to the body physics but he did so while suffering an incredibly debilitating & progressive disease. Therefore his celebrity is a function of what he overcame to make those contributions rather than the size of those contributions themselves.
Dear Mr. Unzicker, I have a question if you do not mind about the hawking's radiation - how it happens that only the antiparticles are sucked into the black hole?
I don't think so. If the ordinary matter particle is absorbed, then the antiparticle is emitted and probably soon destroyed by pair annihilation ... the problem with HR is that it will never be observable against the huge backgrounds and, strictly speaking, a nonfalsifiable concept....
@@TheMachian thank you! ... I am amazed, such as probably you are, what amount of nonsense is produced in the cosmology in the last decades. I love your videos and critical thinking - keep them going.
@@TheMachian about proving hawking radiation - it should be possible if we find a small enough black hole (or perhaps generate one ourselves in the future). the strength of the radiation is supposed to be inversely proportional to the size of the black hole after all.
@@TheMachian Well, it should be possible for us to create artifical black holes that emit detectable amounts of hawking radiation. Such experiments may be impratical for us today, but they are possible.
Really enjoying the lectures. Savage but true, but in his defense, really nobody has contributed much of anything in the past 80 years compared to the founding physicists.
Most normies never listened to us redpills or conspiracy nuts. But from a guy with pure blood, intact heart. You have to start considering the possibility that humanity has an adversary and one area they are messing with us is to disrupt / distract /falsify our study of physics/reality.
It's anthropocentric to immediately demand that a mathematical model be testable by us meat sacks at the present time. The ToE when it arises will most likely look impossibly highfalutin to the uninitiated. It will look like a string theory or some such. It's a nice ideal to have things be testable but we may just have to wait on some big developments to reach that point. To criticize a model like string theory for "having no basis in reality" is anthropocentric because we can only approach knowledge of absolute reality from the limited vantage of our corner of apprehension. Our minds, however, aren't always so tethered to immediate experience, which is how we get developments like relativity and QM in the first place. Do you think both of those models received the criticism that, "they have no basis in reality" when they came out? I'll bet they did. We may get to a point that "testing" a theory or model might take the form of running it as a simulation on a computer or quantum computer, and seeing if that model generates something resembling our observable universe.
the sanctification of hawking was the result of the fact that SO LITTLE was/is happening in physics that is new, novel, or engaging....physics is an impoverished discipline and hawking was probably the last and most recent physicist in the past 75 years to actually have a genuinely new idea, namely the black hole
I have seen much that puts black hole theory into question, even the evidence for gravitational lensing... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B_ixkOI4k8c.html
I remember when A Brief History of Time first came out. I was _very_ excited. Then I read it. Twice. I came out understanding _less_ than I went in with. A lot of swash and no buckle. The exact same thing happened to me with String Theory. Very excited we were getting to the bottom of things but then the bottom dropped out and we were left looking into an abyss. How do you feel about Roger Penrose? I argue he's up there with Dirac. Would love to see how people feel about that. Especially given his recent work on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, Objective Reduction, and, with Stuart Hammeroff, Orchestrated Objective Reduction in cerebral pyramidal cell microtubules and their role in animal consciousness.
I read A Brief History of Time in 3rd grade and it was the kernel that turned me into a math and physics major from wanting to be a video game programmer. I don't understand how you could come away understanding less after reading it if you're a novice. I spent many nights lying in bed after that as a child imagining the 4D deformations of spacetime of moving or colliding black holes and cosmic bodies after that.
@@ClarkPotter First of all, I am delighted to hear that's what happened to you. I did not mean to denigrate Hawking in any way. But I was 26 when the book came out in 1988 and already had the same fascination as you and was looking for deeper answers. It's just that that particular book didn't add much to what I already had. The fact that it _did_ have a powerful effect on so many people such as yourself should never be dismissed, which I now realize it kinda sounded like I did. I love science and physics and mathematics and I am grateful for people such as yourself who share the wonder of it all. I am not a fan of bashing smart people. A lot of content on this channel is just plain wrong, in my opinion, but it's always good to question one's assumptions. That's why I mentioned Penrose in my comment. His ideas are controversial yet he is able to explain them clearly and they are all testable and falsifiable, if not already tested. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to comment. (P.S.: Speaking of 4D, one thing people never seem to get right is that you _subract_ the square of time in the spacetime distance, so that its root is _imaginary_ . I think Einstein originally made space negative and time positive, but it flipped the sign on E=mc2 so he switched it.)
Agree on roger penrose and a brief history and string theory. I was a teenager when I read them and thought Brian Greene was on it. Then realized you can’t test any of it….
The "conspansive matrix" model form the CTMU is the end of the line with space-time modeling. By it's derivation, the "CM" entails the virtual "nesting" of each quantum state, thereby ensuring no further reduction is implied. Like a cosmic Russian doll, virtually nested states are subject to "parallel processing" and "rescaling functionality" of every last state or frame of reference thereto, thereby giving a straightforward explanation for time-frame dilation, "dark" matter & energy, and even favorable genome selection, namely via cross-temporal feedback inherently maximizing overall "systemic self-utility". The CTMU is the only "reality model" I've encountered that even addresses the "reality theory" issues, let alone hits a grand slam in the process.
@@ClarkPotter I agree. ABHT is a beautiful attempt to explain many fundamental concepts in modern physics simply while forcing the layperson to put some solid cognitive work in. It certainly shouldn't be read as a manifesto of personal genius, because it simply isn't; it's Hawking attempt to communicate many ideas developed by more influential physicists. I'd argue he does this successfully, bastardizing less of them than many other science communicators.
It's called theoretical Physics, and it means that you can play with equations to see what the math tells you, exactly what you did in the Schwarzschield radius and mass dependence here. So yes it's still physics as long as you're consistent with the rules. Just say that you yourself didn't understand it, so it's not good for you.
@@infinitrixtv5847 Exactly, sabine holssenfelder talks about the same thing in her critique of string theory. he did not in any way invalidate the importance of deriving assumptions from the mathematics.
It's still physics as long as it is consistent with rules and fundamental observations of nature. Schwarschild radius equation violates known laws of thermodynamics i.e. that any equation involving interrelation of physical properties must be so that an extensive (linearly proportional to amount of matter involved) quantity is equated to another extensive quantity [and same for intensive (independent of amount of matter involved)]. In the radius equation M is an extensive quantity, G and c are intensive quantities and R is neither and extensive nor intensive quantity so the equation is invalid on physical grounds, although it is dimensionally correct.
I find that if you do as Unzicker suggested and fill our solar system with water at a density of 997 kg/m3 and the solar system radius is 60 AU, then the Schwarzschild radius would be 30100 AU. This implies that you can pass the event horizon and still have 30040 AU to go until you hit the water volume surface of the solar system. Please check my calculation?
Because einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation (e=mc^2) allows you to find an equivalence of the speed of light and mass/energy (square root of energy over mass).
This video shows a complete misunderstanding of what a black hole is. A black hole isn't defined as a material object with a given density; rather, it is defined (loosely speaking) as a region whose radius is less than or equal to its Schwarzschild radius. In this regard, the Schwarzschild radius of the observable Universe is in fact smaller than its radius. So the claims about black holes made here aren't valid criticisms.
There is a difference between knowledge and repeating common opinions you seem to miss here. What you are saying is not news to anyone, but you fail to appreciate the enigmatic coincidence of c^2 with G mu/Ru (first noted by Schrödinger). One may express it as having the universe its Schwarzschild radius, but the argument is just numerical. Unless this is clarified, there IS a problem with black holes.
Interesting thought. If something can fly away from the rest of the mass of the universe and continue indefinitely then it has exceeded the escape velocity. Isn't the fact that the universe looks like it will expand forever proof that it is not a black hole ?
@@Paul-rs4gd but you cant fly away from the rest of the mass of the universe. no matter which way you turn and move you'll see more of the universe and it's mass. same as how inside a black hole every direction will just take you closer to the singularity. only in the universe, the singularity is actually in the past (the big bang). and no matter which way we turn we can never approach it, in fact we will only ever get further away from it, and the universe will continue to expand. which leads to some interesting speculation, if we assume that the universe is the inside of a black hole. once past the event horizon, time reverses direction and far from you falling into the singularity, instead the singularity is always something that happened in the past essentially being a white hole, with you simply being carried along with the expanding space (but unable to leave to where you came from before you crossed the event horizon).
11:12 “there might be a relation between the gravitational constant and the speed of light and the mass and the radius of the universe” Both EM and gravity share the Inverse Square Laws, so this sounds logical as part of a 3D geometrical process! In observations on the international space station in near-zero gravity a candle flame naturally forms a sphere that is interacting with the environment relative to its two dimensional surface. Could this geometry be fundamental in forming three dimensional space and the passage of time? If the sphere was the size of the whole Universe the geometrical principle would remain the same, the surface area of the sphere is equal to the square c² of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π.
I don't believe the candle represents sth very fundamental. However, the relation of G to the universe is likely to exist, a thought that has been expressed firs by Ernst Mach (see other stuff on Mach's principle).
May I suggest that singularities, being infinities, can never exist? It would suggest that the inside of a black hole is a superdense soup that is basically frozen in time, since the collapse is asymptotic and can never reach the singularity state (well, until infinite time passes, which is the same thing).
I think it's silly to say that "the laws of physics cease to exist." OUR laws may cease to but clearly the universe's itself don't cease. It just is what it is, even if we don't have an accurate model of what exactly that is yet.
@@ClarkPotter I think it's very silly to say that, but it's a euphemism for trying to make laws apply when you plug an infinity in. Obviously no maths will work in that situation.
"Physics deals with theories that are not really observable and testable." Bingo! That's a _huge_ critical problem. Yet we are sternly admonished that we _must_ accept them, or else be labeled as "against science." Thanks for saying this.
Totally agree! Instead of creating new entities like strings and extra dimensions, use only established facts to form a hypothesis. This will at least lower the burden of proof.
I have been saying the same thing. The society seems over award victimhood: with the same achievement, for a regular person, it would have been great, just like many people doing great thing. But if the person disabled, or woman, or black, then it would over the top great, nothing can be better than that. Examples are everywhere: Obama get Nobel Prize for simply being back. Because he is black, everything he did is great. Look at the reality, his economic performance is probably the worst of all Presidents, if you fail that, you probably fail the entire presidency, but because he is black, you can't talk about his fault. The former Apple CEO had been a loser in business for almost his entire career, but at the end of his life, he is painted almost the greatest inventor. Canadian NDP leader Jack Layton was political loser for his entire life, then he got Cancer, over night he became a hero. Hawking is pretty much the same thing, he did have great contribution in physics, but not as much as he is portraited to be. One last observation, in order to be on the victimhood list, you have to be politically liberal, if you are a conservative, you are not qualified.
10:00 Are you sure the density goes proportional to R^3? The Schwarzschild radius R is defined in Schwarzschild metric and even the geometry is non-Euclidean. I doubt this R may not correspond linearly to literal radius of black hole in the space.
I loved the comment about R and M in the Schwartzchild equation. Once you think about it, it hits you that there's something seriously wrong with the equation! What's more, if the equation is logically derived from a theory, then the theory is seriously wrong!
A Nobel prize does not validate a scientific theory ! This is an example of how a sociological phenomenon (society rewarding a scientist in a big way for some scientific effort) can skew a hard science away from the path of truth seeking.
Dear sir, I hope you know that traditionally Nobel prize is given for a theory only after an acceptable observation or an experiment makes it believable. That's why Hawking never got the Nobel, because his theories were never verified, they were just widely accepted. Roger Penrose, on the other hand, is the first of his kind to be awarded, paving way for more theoreticians to get that award, but be assured, Nobel prize does validate experimentally viable theories.
Feynman, as I think did make contributions worthy of at least a joint Nobel prize in qed, his diagrams reflect a creative and an original work which had many applications. On the other hand, he, at least at most times, stayed with his philosophy of, ‘The first principle is not to fool yourself’. Maybe he is very famous because of his influence, especially for his communications through lectures and books. His overhyping is not upon his scientific work I assume, as it is of others in your series, but rather of a public popularity of him for his attitude and charisma. In his later life, he did make contributions worthy of another Nobel, as believed by some. May not put him in great but definitely not in overhyped. But a lively scientist larger than life.
@@TheMachianMy suggestion is that Feyman diagrams are not correct, say so because of a dna picture that shows that the electromagnetic orbits in the picture of dna show that they overslap a bit. - Astrophysics have found that andromeda has a halo that encircles it way to far from andromeda, so my guess is that stars do the same so why not atoms?
What singularity? where? (A singularity is generally an artifact of the math model.) Imagine a neutron star accumulating matter. The gravitational gradient (force) is maximal at its surface, and decreases to zero at its center. Since the amount of matter involved is finite, the force cannot be infinite. Similarly, while the pressure at the neutron star's center may be very large (perhaps causing a phase-change "quark-matter"), the amount of matter involved is finite, so the pressure cannot be infinite. While the gravity gradient at the surface will cause some very interesting optics, I can see no reason why that could produce a singularity, especially given that quantum mechanics indicates a minimum distance metric. As a photon rises it should be red-shifted until its wave-length matches the horizon's dimension, but that is also a finite value.
Precisely! Just the term black hole bothers me. It can't be a hole or infinitely dense. It has to be an ultra dense dark star... Like a super massive neutron star / gravistar hybrid. The accreditation disc would be present as we have some evidence of this. . And it could still swallow stars and emit radiation at the poles.
10:18 Incredibly the first time I saw this calculation of the density of the Universe be or conversely calculation the Swarzschild radius of a an object of the mass of the Universe being of the radius of the Universe was not on a Physics book: it was on an Isaac Asimov science popularization book far before I studied Physics.
The block universe, where all of time is equally real, is a great idea. If it's true it makes us immortal. But all the events of an eternal past exist outside the range of our own light cones so none of it's observable.
Your 20th century mathematical philosophical way was a old way when people were learning and grasping the modern concepts. It was a transitional phase which occurs when we learn something new. It is because of the new approach giving priority to the learning from Nature, the 20th century Physicists made huge progress.
Great summary "modern physics deals. With alot of theories that are not observervable or testable" that is: not falsifiable. Is there a corollary for particle physics? Perhaps, CERN experimental results are only valid to the members of the church of particle physics, everyone else thinks they are graphs of random noise.
From everything I understand about the escape velocity of a so-called ‘black hole’ is either the ‘speed of light’ or ‘0’; so surely, by logic, that would imply either light CAN escape the speed of light, as that is the escape velocity, or ANYTHING can escape if ‘0’ is the escape velocity. Nothing about so-called ‘black holes’ makes sense, including their disregard for the 0th, 1st and 2bd laws of thermodynamics. Am I wrong?
yet the event horizon DOES decrease over time as black holes "dissipate" and jet out one pole and redistribute the matter absorbed into a galaxy and then as density lowers have a circulation to them.
I disagree on two assertions that you make in this video. That GR is well tested by the perihelion of mercury and by the Eddington observation. Firstly, is the correct calculation of the perihelion of Mercury really proof of GR? Is there no other theory which would explain it? Secondly, as far as I am aware, observations were only taken at the limb of the sun. This is a problem, if true. How were refraction and diffraction ruled out as cause? Surely observations away from the limb would be needed to really prove gravitational bending of starlight?
To my knowledge, light deflection has been tested in many other instances, not only at the solar limb. E.g. HIPPARCOS and GAIA astrometric data contain stars relatively far from the sightline. Besides that, gravitational lensing, even if this is not that direct. Perihelion is an important 2nd-order test consistent with GR. That does not mean there is no other possible theory.
What’s wrong with larger black holes being less dense? It’s easy to see why this should be true. The more mass a thing has, the less dense it needs to be to have a particular strength of gravity. Hence Jupiter has over 2.5x the gravity of Earth while having less than a quarter of the density. And what’s wrong with the idea that the universe itself might be a black hole (or inside of one)? That would be fascinating and would lend support to Lee Smolin’s hypothesis of cosmic natural selection. What’s this about a swimming pool the size of the solar system being a black hole? What does that mean and where are you getting it from?
Have you noticed that Brian Greene frequently says he is skeptical of String "theory" (Why not call elastic strands "springs"?) but that he goes on to continually promote it? I don't know other people who promote things they are openly skeptical of except for actors and production teams who know they have made a terrible movie but they really need to recover their production costs.
I was fortunate to meet Hawking as a student and found him to be one of the most inspiring and gifted physicists of our times. He demonstrated a vivid genius under extremely difficult handicap. Let’s be inspired and step away from quick polarized judgement
The especially obnoxious part is he titled his book A Universe from Nothing but then when you ask him about it he turns around and tells you "Oh I didn't actually mean nothing." So why did you call your book that?!
Interesting to note that this picture of Hawking on the title card, which was taken in 1982, looks nothing like the Stephen Hawking after 1982. They are OBVIOUSLY two different persons. Anyone can see the difference. Why is this the case? Why are there two different people claiming to be Stephen Hawking?
So, we need more science-and-engineering-based physics to establish new theoretical physics? I'm so confused. Right now I'm happy to toss out redshift as a measure of velocity/distance. I'm even happy to accept black holes can't exist. What I want to know is - what *can* we count on as actually being correct? I suspect I have a library of books which contain stuff that's not even wrong! :(
He's right: assuming black holes even exist all we can ever actually observe is the event horizon. Therefore the idea of a hidden singularity is a theoretical fiction which we cannot ever observe and does not therefore exist until we can: That is hard science! Reminds me so much of Godel's Theorem which physicists completely ignore.
Maybe you like to do a video or videos on today's more populist physicists and those making significant contributions today like, Leonard Susskind Michio Kaku Brian Greene Sean Carroll These guys seem to attract a lot of attention from the lay and non-lay persons. I am not a physicist but someone interested in the progress of Physics. Thanks for some of the videos enjoy most of them.
The list is getting longer and longer by the day. It is all about the money..(.and the topspot. Hawking had the topspot but since he died nobody replaced him). You can even see Hossenfelder wearing a bra that makes her breasts look larger to get more viewers on RU-vid. A few more..Brain Cox, Laurence M Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson (who is in movies and talkshows..desperately wants to have to topspot). Seriously, do a show about these people, what their contributions and what we should think about their videos...what is going on there...
If Hawkins radiation is the matter particle flying off as the anti matter falls in, shouldn't just as frequently the anti matter particle fly out and the matter particle fall in with zero net loss of black hole mass? Where am I wrong?
In both cases, there is a net loss because the pair is believed to be created by vacuum fluctuations; the BH has "to pay" for that... however, nobody has ever seen Hawking radiation...
My gripe with Hawking is in one sense similar, with this idea that he was an abused celebrity, as it was such a convenient narrative for the time to browbeat people with someone who would be untouchable from the usual level of criticism. And they used all this to insert and push a wrong philosophical/metaphysical picture of reality as if it was settled science, with entropy, big bang, heat death of universe, the usual glum disempowering stuff. But the original arrow of time book and his early work on proper cosmology and his debates and disagreements with Penrose make for thought provoking stuff. Just steer clear of the later books where he, or whoever was writing for him, starts spouting the most amateurish of philosophy that has been undermined in the philosophical conversation over a century ago.
Unzipper (or whatever the name is): I'm just mad I'm not as famous as I should be. I taught PHYSICS I and II for Christ's sake. ROFLMAO. I can say this I have a degree in physics. I understand your pain, Prof. UnZip. I, too, feel I should be super famous. Perhaps I can suggest a psychiatrist for you instead of a physicist?
Thank you for this. I totally agree with you on Mr. Hawking. I personally find the evidence for black holes pretty convincing but I adore your skepticism.
Brad S . . Where do you see black holes local ? is there a magic curtain up there , where unreal things occur up there but not here . . was there really a magic times in past Earth history where Hollywood style/bible style angels & demons roamed the land casting spells ?
Brad S . . Explain how the ash's of electric fields aka weak force gravity can punch through time & space itself to create 'worm holes' to other dimensions . . in your own time
@@benwinter2420 Because Einstein keeps nailing it. He predicted them. He just didn't think they were real. The orbit of the planets match an expected mass. When a blackhole is active, it lights up like a xmas tree in the xray and the radio. Mostly because of Einstein, the blackhole evidence is pretty convincing. Is it empirical? That is for each person to decide on their own. In the age of big dollar Science, "test it yourself" is not so easy. Einstein has an excellent reputation. I'm siding with him. I think he would be convinced.
Entropy does't occur now . . endless cycles ensue , of course there was a beginning & perhaps an end eventual , but these topics are outside of our pay scales . . certainly outside of clerk Einsteins
So I am new to these series of videos by Dr. Unzicker and I have got to ask, the claim that the various theories put forward the Physicists of 80s, specially in the field of Particle Physics, are nothing but, to conclude the message given through the videos, pieces of mathematical derivations that may not resemble the reality (and the reason why that is believed is because there isn't any way to deduct an experiment for the actual observation of the observables that these theories generate, right?), then, according to your what constitutes a good theory that would be consistent with the older models? For example if you are rejecting the Renormalization part of the QFT, then you can't comment upon the infinites that we encounter in the usual Quantum Mechanics, and if you can't explain it, then there has to be something fill up this lacuna of knowledge, right? I have a point of view, that these theories are instrumental in deriving a theory in the future that shall be self-contained and more rigourous. But if we refrain from proposing 'Hypothesis' that actually do explain some part of the inexplicable then we aren't actually doing science justice anyway. I am curious to know about your take on this. Thanks.
You are free to believe any fancy you want, including renormalization. If I say (as Dirac did) that it is nonsense, I don't have to provide an alternative. True scientific thinking prefers to acccept a gap rather than filling it with guesswork. (Erwin Schrödinger)
@@TheMachian I accept this very much. I am a biology undergraduate student and I think we should learn to say “We don’t know yet” rather than us all trying to be remarkable and filling science with nuisance theories.
The problem is post war humanity shifted from trying new to perfection of existing. We have best social and electronic networks but all were invented way before in fifties we see new theories adopted by peer research rarely.
That final clause ("in which all known laws of nature cease") in the Nobel citation for Penrose is very much unfortunate. Penrose certainly should have edited that out.
What i am really grateful for, what Stephen Hawking did. Was the disproval of the theory: "a Healthy mind lives in a Healthy body". I also frown upon those, who say things, that can/could be observed in Nature/Universe "break the laws of Physics". When in fact, they only break views or explanations, we came up with. Physics can't be broken. it can be discovered and/or (re)defined. Physics is the "explanation" of Nature/universal laws. Not the other way around. Just because it is Unusual on our Planet, Does not make it "break any laws". It might from time to time disprove a Formula. But "reasons for it" will remain. No matter what we scribe on a blackboard.
I agree, for some reason people don't know that Einstein repeatedly said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General relativity predicting singularities) do not appear in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." This phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Nobody believed in singularities when Einstein was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know this through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us because as the graph shows we are still connected to it. Einstein formulated relativity before the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It's clear that the mass is dilated though the galaxy and not the universe as a whole. The greatest mystery in science is the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact. If you pose the question "why can't we see light from the galactic center?" the modern answer would be because gravitational forces there are so strong that not even light can escape (even though the mass of the photon is 0) Einstein's answer would be because the mass there is dilated relative to an Earth bound observer. Einstein's answer explains the greatest mystery in science.
Einstein also changed his opinion on the subject, and he also believed we live in a static universe. I don't know where you are getting your information from.
@@timeformegaman Well since observations are showing that both big bang and expansion are looking increasingly impossible, dontcha think maybe he got that bit right?
@@Maungateitei I follow the news on this extremely closely. Nothing discovered is making the big bang or expansion look impossible. I have no idea what you are evening talking. Even if some of the details get ironed out, the big bang model isn't going anywhere. The CMB map, cosmic nucleosynthesis, and galactic redshift all point pretty hard in the direction of a big bang event. Maybe you need to watch a real scientist interpret the data regarding new discoveries?
@@timeformegaman Yes. Its important to listen to actual scientists, not "science communicators" or news releases. Possibly the most in depth and approachable if you want videos on this matter is See The Pattern. Roger Penrose is a leading physicist who does not agree with the big bang, as one example. There are many others. JWST has effectively scotched the big bang and expansion theory. And noone was ever able to produce a simulation starting at the end of the mythological inflationary period that does not run away into extreme clumping, or stay smooth. LPPFusion goes into the complete failure of BB, and the "six different levels of magical thinking" that have been resorted to to Prop up BB when observations falsify it.
"If you take the very low density of the universe, like just one atom per cubic meter, and you take the size of the universe, turns out the universe is a black hole. How do we get there?" This explains number of dimensions, space curvature, modified gravity, space expansion, big bang, inflation, dark energy, etc. what's wrong?
I do not think well of Prof Unzicker's personalizations of physics. Too many of his video offerings do that in a way that does not reflect well on the scientists he discusses or reduces the value of their contributions. That practice does not reflect well on him.
Hawking's result on black hole entropy was stunning at the time and still is. It started the serious and still continuing study of entanglement that seems to explain more and more things in modern physics. I would not dismiss Steven Hawking so lightly. Granted, his first book was not that good, but we can overlook this.
stunning though, but unfortunately incorrect. Many mistakes in his original year 1974 paper, I am very surprised few people are brave enough to take about it or point out those mistakes. Very Disappointed for physics society. Maybe it is because if one boast his work, then everyone happy and everyone will like the one who boast. If one point out Hawking's mistakes or talk down his work, then everyone will be mad about that person, so no one is willing to do this
According to convention … Mass & Energy do not just "disappear" ( used in context ) so I took a great interest in his "Hawking Radiation: though yet to grasp the simplest smidgen of it _ I have developed a novel and unsupported alternate idea which makes great sense to me and have found trained persons which are saying as much
@@kidchen4413 it's almost like the people pushing this grift realized that he was a perfect handicapped pawn which only Big Meanie Heads would dare criticize.
