Explore the enigmatic Planck star, a quantum construct surviving within black holes. Discover how this strange entity reshapes our understanding of black holes, quantum mechanics, and the universe's future.
I would argue that Planck Star is a better name for a black hole. Because "black hole" is a bit of a misnomer. There is an object there, it's just a mass that has collapsed to such a point of density, that it warps the fabric of spacetime around it, to the point that even light falls in. The "hole" part that we can observe, when it's accumulating matter, isn't the object, it's just how much it warps space around it. The event horizon is all we can observe.
Well they were first called dark stars and then gravitationally collapsed objects. Black hole was only coined in i think the 1960s but it caught on due to the undeniably provocative catchiness.
what gets me is that apparently once you cross the event horizon, the singularity (or in this case the planck star) stops being a point in space and becomes a point in time which is very abstract but makes sense. if you think about it all gravity kinda seems that way. if you fall towards earth without any way to escape the "pull" the ground kinda ceases to become a point in space but more like the future, in a way
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153read Roy Kerr's paper from December last year. That whole "time switches roles inside a black hole" is completely false. That's what physicists have said for a long time but he conclusively proves that to be incorrect. It is due to a faulty coordinate system. Inside a black hole is a "not dissimilar from neutron star" central mass held up by the centrifugal force. Time still passes inside a black hole, after passing through the inner horizon you could never leave the black hole again but you are not doomed to be destroyed at a singularity. He beautifully proves this and the few mainstream physicists who have addressed his paper have conceded he is absolutely correct. It is his disproof of the Penrose singularity theorem. For some reason most physicists desperately cling to the singularity idea even though it is completely illogical for a rotating black hole (event single black hole in the universe), but admitting a singularity is not real opens a Pandoras box they prefer to not deal with. But time 100% does not stop in a black hole and the "central core body" is not a future moment in time.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153 I think that is a fantastic way to describe the "flip" once someone or something has crossed the event horizon. Very well put. 👍🏻
Glad to see more Astrographics, @Astrographics and Simon - special request: please do an episode of a map of the known universe - starting from our Solar System which we all know, of course, but going on to the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster, etc. and please tell us - where are all these cosmic voids - Bootes void, etc - thank you and keep it up!
Scientists have actually proved mathematically that the known Universe is not old enough for any single person to have watched all the videos Simon has produced over the years in his singularity of channels!!!
I am happy to watch your vids because you're an actual person doing the work, and not some trash chatbot. They are out of control! # supportREALcreators!
@@jeffdroogNot that it isn't heard of but the person has a 10 year old account. Most bots tend to be relatively new accounts. Although this account kind of uses a similar naming convention to ones bots use.
@@ibelieveingaming3562 Singularities are not facts. Quite the opposite, they're errors in our physics. Max Tegmark doesn't even believe they exist, he claims that we just don't have a full understanding of the physics yet. Singularities are what pops out of our maths when we try to merge quantum mechanics and relativity. Our physics breaks down and we get infinities (that's where the singularity comes from, an infinity in our math). This infinity is what gives rise to several paradoxes - the singularity itself is a paradox and cannot/should not exist. Some string theorists believe there is no singularity and that there is a string star at the center of a black hole. They call them "fuzz balls". They operate exactly as we observe black holes to operate with the exception of those pesky paradoxes & singularities. String Stars are basically neutron stars that have gone SSJ. When our sun dies, its core compresses down into a white dwarf - this is a star comprised of mostly electron-degenerate matter (aka an electron star). When an even more massive star dies, we get a neutron star being held together by neutron degeneracy pressure. Going beyond that, quark stars may exist as an intermediary between neutron stars and black holes but we've yet to find one. When a neutron star collides with another creating a black hole, what it's really doing is breaking down even further, into strings creating a string star, aka a fuzzball or black hole. Granted, there's no evidence for a fuzzball yet, but there's also no evidence for a planck star either. Anyone wanna jump into one and report back to us? You can communicate to me via my bedroom's bookshelf.
@@ibelieveingaming3562we don't even know if "inside" of an event horizon exists, much less if a singularity exists there. Our models of physics break at the event horizon. Every supposition of what, if anything, is beyond the event horizon is purely hypothetical at best.
The ever growing list of hypothetical objects that try to explain black holes is so damn interesting. Off the top of my head we have fuzzballs,dark stars,dark energy stars,grava stars,magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects,black stars,electro weak stars,preon stars,boson stars,etc
minor correction: there are no evaporating black holes today, as even the cosmic microwave background radiation alone is enough to sustain them. it won't be until nearly all stars have died out before black holes start evaporating.
Technically speaking, there are probably numerous evaporated black holes already. When scientists talk about it taking 10¹⁰⁰ years, that is for the largest of the supermassive black holes to finally fizzle away. Not all black holes are supermassive, although they're the only type we have been able to detect. Theoretically, micro black holes should also be common in the universe, evaporating within minutes or even seconds, too brief of a time for an astronomer to observe.
No black hole today has started getting smaller from hawking radiation. More stuff is still falling in faster than the process. Black holes evaporating won't be starting for a long, LONG time from now.
There's a theoretical type of black hole called a Primordial black hole. They would be microscopic. Those are the ones that would be evaporating soon. If they exist. They have never been observed. So they are still just theoretical.
Yea, like the biggest blackholes would take 10^106 years to fully evaporate (for reference, the universe is 1.365x10^10 years old, so thats is a full 96 orders of magnitude larger)
Actually your wrong, sagatarius A * the black hole at the centre of the milky-way is not feeding at all, it is only radiating hawking radiation (if that actually exists) 🤔👽
@@bernieburton6520 Yes, basically remnants from the big bang or survivors of inflation or whatever (I'm no expert, but it was something along those lines). Being microscopic (even subatomic IIRC - that's in terms of volume, not mass), the odds of anything falling in are virtually zero, but Hawking radiation will evaporate them quickly (and quicker as they evaporate). IF they exist, of course.
The two particles explanation for black holes is common, but flawed. Hawking said the radiation was due to the black hole disrupting certain modes of quantum waves, preventing the destructive interference that stops these waves from being detectable as a particle.
There is nothing "Inside" a black hole except extremely tightly packed mass. The reason they are called black holes is because the mass creates a gravity well so extreme that even photons of light becomes trapped in orbit. You don't get that gravity if it's hollow.
First thought when hearing of "Planck Star" has nothing to do with the man, I first think of a very very small "star" inside the black hole which is made of all the matter collapsing into it, crushed by gravitational force. Usually physicists say that inside the black hole is a "singularity", but everyone knows that cannot be true, because no physical quantity can ever have an infinite value (infinitely large or infinitely small).
@@jacktup-s7x Easy. A finite thing cannot ever become infinite. Universe could be infinite only if it started infinite, otherwise it will always remain finite.
@@markosskace514 that's not proof of anything, actually. Seeing as we have no way to tell the size of the universe when it started, then your premise is flawed from the get go. And before you try to mention the Big Bang, please keep in mind that no matter how widely accepted it may be, it is still a theory. So until we either figure out how to see what happened, or find an end to the universe, it is in fact infinite
Yes, it is pretty cool to know about. Pretty cool indeed. Thank you for this video! Planck stars are a new one for me, so it was fascinating to learn about them from you.
So I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I'd really like to see a video on one or more of the various non-government spaceships being developed/deployed. Maybe that's more of a sideprojects video but I'd be really interested nonetheless!
I was about 5 seconds ahead in my brain thinking about the differences in the time scale of the growth of such an object from the interior perspective and exterior perspective when you brought that up... but that felt a bit lack luster to me. It's gotta be *so much weirder* than that for things to work out mathematically. Like... there would be a point in time when the maths would indicate that the volume of the planck star inside the black hole, from the interior perspective, would exceed the volume of the event horizon. Naively, this would suggest that at some point, when our clocks finally catch up, black holes literally revert back to visible celestial bodies with regular space-time curvature. My money's still on Hawking Radiation, black hole evaporation, etc. But I *also* prefer the idea that there's some actual ... thing ... in the center of the black hole, and not some goofball mathematical singularity.
imagining the black hole as an object stuck in time waiting for enough antimatter to fall in for the plank star to touch the event horizon is an interesting way to look at it
You should do one about how a collapsing star might create the perfect atom. I think that is the idea i dont really remember where i saw this or read about it, might be something else.
Very interesting topic but when we try to explain Planck Stars we should also explain why the Planck quantum is the smallest quantum possible and why that leads to a mass-collapse-result of a minimum-diameter star which is bigger than zero, and then we should be able to describe better what happens between the Planck Star surface and the black hole event horizon.
The claim that virtual particles always and only one side falls in and the other is emitted as hawking radiation implies the black hole influences the direction of the creation and separation of the virtual particle where as virtual particles are forming all around us right now so avoiding violations of thermodynamics both negative and positive should be on either side of the event horizon
That's because the explanation they use in this video is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed. The charge of the virtual particle is irrelevant and in reality there would be an equal number of both positive and negative particles. In fact that's not even right because what the explanation he's referring to is the particle/anti-particle pair, not the electric charge. What is really the point is that the energy of the particle that escapes from just outside the event horizon (not from within, that's still impossible) has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is the black hole's mass. But even THEN that's far too simplistic an explanation and to be frank I don't fully understand the full breadth of it. But it has to do with quantum fields interacting with the event horizon or how they bend around the black hole. PBS Space Time has a video on it and I've not been able to wrap my head around it enough to retain the info frankly.
Astrographics I now love you hahah in 2018 I made a college essay on this! I AM SO very happy that others keep this idea alive! I love this with plank stores there is less paradoxes I don't understand why black holes with its paradoxes prevail. If anyone wants to read my college essay hit me up hahah
Pressure at the Middle: As you go down a mine, the force of gravity on you decreases: there is more and more Earth above you, pulling upward on you. By the time you rach the middle, the net force of gravity is zero. You're under no pressure.
It's a common misconception that nothing can be smaller than the plank scale, however that's not really what the mathematics says. It's just the smallest MEASURABLE length due to uncertainty
If the plan star's mass and size grows from adding more more material into it, wouldn't the event horizon grow proportionally as well, so the plank star surface would never reach the event horizon?
With an object that massive, effectively, sending matter and energy into the future, it would be somewhat like a spring of ancient water in a desert. Resources from the distant past are available to use and sustain life (or useful existence in this metaphor) in an oasis from emptiness.
10 years ago I read about unexplainable observation, that some theorised could have been white holes. Now with some new calculations and observations, we came up with an actual scientific possible explanation for it and call it Planck Stars. Cool.
Blackhole lifespans are directly correlated to their mass. Smaller black holes would last fractions of a second while larger ones last billions of years, yet at the same time they all have the exact same lifespan from their perspective. How is that possible? Simple really, imagine a bucket with a big hole in it and a really sloppily placed patch. The less water in the bucket the worse the patch works. If you somehow fill the bucket up it's basically a fixed bucket that never empties, however anything less than that and the bucket simply empties out. The more water that leaves the bucket the faster it continues to leave. So why is their perspective different? That happens because mass is time. With out mass, there is no time, the more mass, the more time. Time being a motion in space, without an object there is no motion to have. The larger mass things move slower from our perspective because they gather time like a funnel gathering all the water around them. Big funnel, more time it sucks up, little funnel, the less time it sucks up. Big things age slower because they are bigger, and that mass eats up all the time around it. That being said there are always exceptions, primordial black holes are essentially buckets which never had holes, that have existed since the dawn of our universe. They are infinitely small buggers that flit about doing random quantum things which would boggle your mind all because they can. Just like the cheeky little brats they are. Since they have no holes to leak from, this makes them all but undetectable by our present methods, since with nothing leaking out, we can't spot them.
Its honestly always mystified me why we didnt always assume this was the case, why we dont assume black holes are quarks and gluons forced into each other like electrons into neutrons in a neutron star
Planks Stars aren't even a theory in the scientific sense, they are a hypothesis. Although one, that is we can test, would greatly expand our knowledge of black holes and the cosmos as a whole.
13:17 An electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 10 to 14 cm would be a microwave oven microwave which operate at 900 megahertz or 2,560 megahertz which have wavelengths of 33 centimeters and 11.7 centimeters respectively. Gamma rays have wavelengths of less than one trillionth of a meter (1/10¹²) and frequencies of 10²⁰ to 10²⁴ Hertz.
We have not confirmed Hawkin radiation observationally and are unlikely to ever do so anytime in the next few billion years. We have no actual proof of Hawkin radiation, only good theory and analog model observations which we hope sufficiently to mirror the real thing but in reality, an acoustic model can never truly mimic some of the more important effects of blackholes so Hawkin radiation is still and likely always will be an extremely good and intuitive guess.
Unless we find a primordial black hole. It's been posited that planet nine is a PBH. Finding a PBH that explodes would be good evidence of Hawking radiation.
Many, many years ago, someone posited a 'Dark Star'- a star so massive that it's escape velocity was higher than light; there was no mention of collapse, or singularity. If any body, is massive enough, there will be a 'speed of light' boundary, from which nothing can escape. If that object is a singularity, or a Planck Star, the result will be the same, an event horizon. Don't know why the one associated with the Planck model is seen as a pretend EH.
Event horizon is just a concentric sphere around a black hole, where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Even if there is a planck star inside, how would that prevent the existence of event horizon?
The universe, bing bang to heat death, is simply rotating through the fifth dimension Black holes are bumps along the way, planck stars are pearls inside the clam horizon
11:34 This is the part I don't understand. The anti-particle falling into the black hole reducing it's charge. However, to the black hole, it's just another particle, it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, regular or anti-matter, it still feeds the black hole, making it grow. So the description of how hawking radiation works is in conflict.
Can you do a video on variable speed of light theories? There is a niche group of scientists who claim their VSL theory explains all of GR with a VSL, but i need a channel like yours to break or down for people like me. Thank you. Keep up the good work!
Conservation of information isn't a tenet of General Relativity; it's a tenet of Quantum Mechanics, so... gaping hole in the theory of Quantum Mechanics should be the line, along with a few others. ;) Otherwise, good job so far at 7:06!
4:40 According to a recent study Big Crunch or Big Bounce is likely, but in a very far future. All I remember they observed distant galaxies and got 0.8 for a constant which should have been more than 1.0. So the expansion should be slowing already, but instead it's accelerating because of the mysterious Dark Energy. So it could be after all stars die out, all black holes explode (Hawking radiation), after all black dwarves explode (quantum tunneling fusion), in a universe full of decaying cold matter and photons or maybe sometimes after the time itself dies to the Heat Death. But again, these theories involve quantum mechanics, timescales of "forever" and science which is still being researched and I work in IT, not astrophysics, so take it with a grain of salt.
A Planck star actually makes sense, since it is the pixel of the universe. And since it is a "black hole" or a Planck star, then it can only have Planck density, which would be exactly the density you would need so that only information/"photons" gets out, anything less wouldn't make it. The max density and gravity so that only internal universe processes can communicate out of it. And those just enough, it is the limit. This would be the so called "Hawkings radiation". A singularity would be some kind of overflow of information into that pixel, and I guess that can't happen, the whole universe would crash just like a computer program would. I actually like the computer metaphor applied to the universe, even if simplistic and not to be taken literally, it kinda makes sense.
Planck stars are not "just a theory". They are just a hypothesis. If there were a Planck star scientific theory, that would mean it were figured out with its physics codified in formulas, shown to actually exist, and understood to some extent Because a scientific theory has had its predictions verified to be correct. Otherwise it wouldn't be upgraded from a hypothesis to a theory
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa. edit: Basically, the more you know about one aspect of a particle or wave, the less you know about the other aspects. Say you are certain of the amplitude of a wave, then the frequency is less certain. Sort of lol
I accidently hit 2x speed when he started explaining energy in electrons. Once i realized what happened, as soon as i set it back to 1x speed, he said, "And boom, now you know how much energy is in that electron" 😂😂😂😂
You say that if plank stars exist, then black holes wouldn't have an event horizon, although they would to us. What you should've said is that they wouldn't have a singularity, although they would still have an event horizon.
Wait. "The Big Crunch" scenario has been found to be unlikely due to new findings that show the universe will likely expand forever. So the entire premise being postulated here falls apart. Feel free to correct me.
My two favorite black hole facts: 1) The universe appears to have more mass in it than required for a black hole the size of the universe. That is to say, the universe itself appears to be a black hole. 2) because of relativity, and time slowing down as you approach the speed of light, from the perspective of an object falling into a black hole the entire universe will have passed and Hawkins radiation will destroy you before you actually cross the event horizon.
Relativity says time would pass normally for you. For someone observing you from outside you would appear to slow. A simple way to think about this is the faster you move through space the slower you move through time for the perspective of an inertial observer. Anyone in an accelerated frame of reference is going to undergo time dilation. In general relativity gravity (warping of spacetime) is indistinguishable from acceleration. Therefore, as you near the black hole you're traveling faster through space and slower through time relative to an inertial observer.
@@stevenlarson3316 yes and my point is still valid. You will never cross the event horizon. The closer you get the faster the time of the universe will pass, and the faster the effects of Hawkins radiation. Time for you will pass normally but you still never fall in. You just evaporate.
@@MarcStollmeyer The hawking radiation would be in the same reference frame with you. You might be thinking of the Firewall theory. Which posits that an incredible amount of energy would be released as the entanglement between particles is broken causing the edge of the event horizon to be a wall of radiation that nothing could pass through. But this theory makes assumptions that go against relativity. We don't have a theory that connects quantum mechanics with general relativity yet.
I heard 1. singularity is where time and space switches and all the other madness. 2. Naked singularity is against physics in the same way like backwards time travel is (Event Horizon "protects" the universe) 3. Bigger the Event Horizon, less dense is the black hole. Some of the biggest black holes have a density of breathable air. A black hole bigger than the observable universe would have the same density as the observable universe. Universe expanding speaks against Black Hole Universe hypothesis.
@@stevenlarson3316 while radiation would be in the same reference, the amount of it for someone falling in on a decreasing circular orbit would increase exponentially until it destroys you. Granted other effects would likely kill you way before this.
Not even a few months ago I asked on another science channel if blackholes could be stars with the even horizon acting as the Corona of the star and the only energy able to escape from the extreme gravity is hawking radiation
Idea: Even getting close to a black hole(event horizon) would cause you to travel forward in time so fast that the black hole would evaporate before you could even cross the event horizon, much more make it to the singularity/plank star… Now individually apply this logic to every object that has ever fallen into a black hole, and you come to the conclusion that: nothing ever makes it to the singularity >> mass doesn’t accumulate at the singularity >> singularity doesn’t have infinite density >> modern physics is solved because no point of infinite density
Time dilation like that would start to occur exponentially as you get very close to the centre of gravity being well beyond the event horizon. Not before
@@456death654 Well I think I have found conflicting sources on weather time dilation like that occurs close to the singularity, or at the event horizon, but even if time dilation like that only occurred close to the singularity, there would still be no point of infinite density because to reach the singularity would take an infinite amount of time, longer than the lifespan of the blackhole itself. What I'm trying to say is that a singularity can never really form, it can only be approached, and we don't need a "Theory of Quantum Gravity" to make that conclusion. (imo)
He probably has a solid self care/decompression routine. I used to work on the phone 8-10 hours at a time. When I was off I'd have quiet time at home and on rough throat days tea and supplements were added. He's a pro, I'm sure he's got it down.
If it is true, then it implies the existence of another degeneracy pressure that can resist the state of total gravitational collapse where the speed of the collapse is already, at minimum, the speed of light at the event horizon. This would also mean that the force carrier particles exchanged between the particles comprising the quark star must also travel at velocities faster than the speed of light to maintain the degeneracy pressure and not be crushed into a singularity. If so, then the physicists must also explain how that is possible, yes?
Wouldn't the event horizon - which is just the point at which measurement by light breaks down due to gravity - grow along with the addition of mass to the Planck star? Proportionally, even?
What if the multiverse is real? And it’s caused by our known universe expanding and all the galaxies with super massive black holes getting further and further apart and rather than the big chill the ones with Planck stars reach their proverbial limit of information and explode in a “big bang” releasing all that accumulated information out creating a new universe?
you don't need to develop something to survive standing on the black hole/planck star though, you just need something that can orbit close enough for long enough to travel forward however many years you wanted to, if billions isn't your target.
