Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/CoolWorlds
Today we explore a problem that has haunted theoretical physicists for decades and remains a topic of active debate - do black holes destroy information? A key precept in quantum theory is that information should be conserved, yet anything that falls into a black hole is seemingly obliterated. How can we reconcile our theories of gravity with that of the quantum world? And could the answer transform the way we look at the Universe...
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Special thanks to Prof Janna Levin for fact checking and for her wonderful book that inspired this video, "Black Hole Survival Guide" a.co/d/eqqP6z1
→ Support our research: www.coolworldslab.com/support
→ Get merch: teespring.com/stores/cool-wor...
→ Check out our podcast: / @coolworldspodcast
THANK-YOU to D. Smith, M. Sloan, L. Sanborn, C. Bottaccini, D. Daughaday, A. Jones, S. Brownlee, N. Kildal, Z. Star, E. West, T. Zajonc, C. Wolfred, L. Skov, G. Benson, A. De Vaal, M. Elliott, B. Daniluk, S. Vystoropskyi, S. Lee, Z. Danielson, C. Fitzgerald, C. Souter, M. Gillette, T. Jeffcoat, J. Rockett, D. Murphree, T. Donkin, K. Myers, A. Schoen, K. Dabrowski, J. Black, R. Ramezankhani, J. Armstrong, K. Weber, S. Marks, L. Robinson, S. Roulier, B. Smith, J. Cassese, J. Kruger, S. Way, P. Finch, S. Applegate, L. Watson, E. Zahnle, N. Gebben, J. Bergman, E. Dessoi, C. Macdonald, M. Hedlund, P. Kaup, C. Hays, W. Evans, D. Bansal, J. Curtin, J. Sturm, RAND Corp., M. Donovan, N. Corwin, M. Mangione, K. Howard, L. Deacon, G. Metts, R. Provost, B. Sigurjonsson, G. Fullwood, B. Walford, J. Boyd, N. De Haan, J. Gillmer, R. Williams, E. Garland, A. Leishman, A. Phan Le, R. Lovely, M. Spoto, A. Steele, K. Yarbrough, A. Cornejo, D. Compos, F. Demopoulos, G. Bylinsky, J. Werner, B. Pearson, S. Thayer, T. Edris, B. Seeley, F. Blood, M. O'Brien, P. Muzyka, D. Lee, J. Sargent, M. Czirr, F. Krotzer, I. Williams, J. Sattler, J. Smallbon, B. Reese, J. Yoder, O. Shabtay, X. Yao, S. Saverys, M. Pittelli, A. Nimmerjahn, C. Seay, D. Johnson, L. Cunningham, M. Morrow, M. Campbell, R. Strain, B. Devermont, & Y. Muheim.
REFERENCES
► Bekenstein, J. 1972, "Black Holes and Entropy", Physical Review D: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/197...
► Hawking, S. 1975, "Particle Creation by Black Holes", Communications In Mathematical Physics,: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/197...
► Hooft, G.'t, 1993, "Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity", General Relativity & Quantum Cosmology: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/199...
► Susskind, L. 1995, "The World as a Hologram", Journal of Mathematical Physics: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/199...
► Maldacena, J. 1997, "The Large N Limit of Superconformal field theories and supergravity", Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/199...
MUSIC
Licensed by SoundStripe.com (SS) [shorturl.at/ptBHI], Artlist.io, via CC Attribution License (creativecommons.org/licenses/...) or with permission from the artist.
0:00 Hill - The Travelers [open.spotify.com/track/5EfCXF...]
2:51 Chris Zabriskie - We Were Never Meant to Live Here
4:30 Hill - The Great Alchemist [open.spotify.com/track/3PAx36...]
9:33 Falls - Life in Binary
11:55 Hill - A Slowly Lifting Fog [open.spotify.com/track/0GgkyL...]
13:23 Falls - Ripley
17:06 Chris Zabriskie - Cylinder Seven
19:11 Joachim Heinrich - Y
21:32 Indive - Halo Drive
CHAPTERS
0:00 Prologue
0:30 Black Holes 101
3:18 Storyblocks
4:30 Unitarity
6:19 Into the Black Hole
7:19 Hawking Radiation
9:33 Entanglement
11:29 The Paradox
13:56 Solutions
15:02 Holography
17:48 Concessions
19:11 Firewall
19:48 Conclusions
21:32 Outro & Credits
#BlackHoles #Cosmology #CoolWorlds
Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/CoolWorlds Let me know your thoughts on this one - what do you think will yield: unitarity, equivalence or locality? Do you have a specific solution you favour?
You make it sound so easy. If Physicists don't know which assumption should yield, then a non-physicist like me definitely doesn't know, but since you asked, I picked locality. Didn't some people get a Nobel Peace Prize for proving locality wasn't a thing two years back?
Locality is indeed where most physicists land, including Sean Carrol, and there are definitely instances of it being violated in special cases
I think your shameless capitalism is reprehensible
i doubt u could acellerate a baseball to escape velocity without it burning up in the thick atmosphere of planet. definitely not from the mid west/close to sea lvl :P btw light isnt the fastest force gravity is & black holes do emit gravic waves it there is more to a 3 D object than its surface hence density but for humans who are reliant on light which only penetrates surface deep it might be ~
i am trying to wrap my head around these paradoxes because i do not understand where is the "paradox" Like... how can you approach a black hole so neatly that you enter it as an astronaut wearing a suit instrad of as a smear of photons and fermions and leptona in a (quite literal) light-speed moving smear? Like: the event horizon is not "a surface" it is just a matematical limit where tbe orbital speed equals the speed of light. there is no surface and it is next to impossible to reach it... like... reaching the event horizon is like trying to move through a tornado to reach the center of the tornado... except the tornado is spacetime itself wrapping around spacetime itself much like wind in a tornado are "layers of air". so to "touch" the "surface" you have had to have accellerated to light speed. So. Your time is already frozen because at light speed time has a speed of zero so from an external perspective you got aucked in then turned into high speed plasma then in a timeframe of a year or so what is left of you that has not been turned into x rays falls "inside". from your perspective you felt a pull got sucked and you died in a... sizeable smaller fraction than the years it took for you to actually fall in. So... you are already a smear and saying it is hard to imagine a smear wrapped around the black hole is... well... hard to imagine how else you would enter said black home.🤔 The holographic principle is just... that because the black hole is not "a nice surface" it is a dip of wrapped and twirling spacetime. And once you pass the event horizon the equations work differently because... you had to cross it in that way. It's like saying your buoyiancy is different inside and outside a tornado and you will "splat" to the surfsce after having been dragget up the tornatdo and thinking it is a parafox you became a smear when falling in the tornado anf the ground meat that hits the tornado inside shoukd have "more structure" to it. 😅 So. I am assuming physicists have more common sense... A lot of the information is "gone" outside the black hole and you are probably just exposed, individual quarks as you fall inside. The idea that you need "more information"than that because there is a chance you can enter it in a different way is like... ...yes. You can throw a pen in a tornado and have it land vertically and calmly on its writing tip on a rock at the centef of thw tornado and stay balanced that way for a few decades. It can happen. The paradox only happens when you just say "it cannot happen" and refuse to believe it. But most people say "it cannot happen" because the chances are next to zero. Not because it cannot happen. The entire basis of this "paradox" is like "what if it happens?" (assumes a non-rotating black hole with a spaceman entering it "vertically" in an ordered fashion) and then being angry because we cannot get any information from such an implausible scenario after never having aeen a single black hole.
Please don't break the universe, it's where I keep all my stuff.
I like stuff.
I am stuff
What if all this stuff is an illusion?
😂
😂
My older brother is a physics professor. When we were growing up, he used to let me look through his telescope (the first time I ever saw Saturn was mind blowing!) while he would explain things about space and the universe using language and concepts that even my brain, with its woefully pitiful lack of mathematical understanding, could comprehend. Long story short, I love these videos because they remind me so much of those nights during my childhood looking up at the sky with wonder while someone explains the universe to me. Thank you for that.
Those are the moments where physics become applied maths, and maths becomes applied philosophy
@@frtzkng I like the poetry of your answer.
Be grateful you have such a brother, I once knew this too.
fun fact: in german, "Schwarzschild" actually means "black shield", so the Schwarzschild radius translates literally to "black shield radius", which seems somehow very appropriate.
Coincidence? I think not. The beings running the simulation for our universe were just having a laugh.
"Black Shield Radius" would be a killer band name.
So...Arnold Schwarzenegger is? 💀
His name in English sounds so racist, it's not his fault but still.
@@Nava9380a bit redundant naming
Nothing is broken, our math describing what we see as reality is just incomplete. A deeper understanding will come in time. If you think about it, a black hole is the perfect place for our current models to expose their flaws, pointing the way to new knowledge. Its analogous to how Mercury's orbit helped point us towards GR from classical Newtonian physics.
Excuse the catchy title to bring people in!
pfft your maths off but close and proposed 1 + 1 = 3 so long as you can just say "with another missing 1"
"Our" meaning belonging or supposed to belong to you and which specific identifiable interlocutor? What exactly are you calling " math" or in pure English maths? You have no idea? No surprises there. It is a form of dreaming is it not? "Breakthe universe" is no more than random jumble of words conveying nothing. In what sense or how can whatever-you-mean-by " math"*describe* anything, but I am grateful that you came up with that meaningless formulation because it awakens another alive question What exactly is behind numbers, just as one can ask what is *behind* words, or what do they contain, and another therefrom, what do words and numbers actually do, or what do they mask? *Or*of what are words or numbers the shadows? I should perhaps say that I am a " word person/mask as opposed to a number person/mask, and maths neither can nor does whatever-you-mean-by"*describe*" anything to me yo me it is merely a jumble of squiggles, and I wonder if there is a what- is- called semantics for words for number which is indicative of no more than quantity is it not? There is a fashion for describing maths as a language which supposition falls to pieces when one asks how does one say "pass the salt" in maths? *Can*" we" see? By the same token can " we" have an headache or hit its thumb with an hammer? *Is* there a " we"
Exactly how many "models" do you in particular and or and/or your various interlocutors have?
maybe the deeper understanding will be nothing is broken and that blackhole's properties such as it's mass, or lack thereof, whether or not information might be lost might all be true simultaneously in a quantum superposition.
Ah, a physics video about my bank account
lol
😂
That implies your bank account keeps getting bigger, but you just can't withdraw it
😂
You have every cent that has ever been put into there? That’s impressive. You must have saved quite a bit depending on how old you are.
I always imagined blackholes as some type of logical glitch in the universe that "crashes" a part of reality like how a game would crash
Awww, man. Now I gotta reboot the universe. Sorry, guys, this will take a while.
everyone has a black hole
@@CoochSmoochlets rewrite it in rust.
@@KSR3 lol
🤔@@KSR3
Black holes are where all the missing socks are
Yeah the spin cycle creates an event horizon. One half of the entangled pair is emitted beyond visible wavelength as Hawking radiation while the other half remains in the relative universe finally solving this fundamental physics problem.
lol
No, it's where coat hangers reproduce.
Seems that I'd you know that, it can't be true due to the information housing principle. Only many socks are probably there for wildly large ranges of "probably" and "there". The "when" therefore is known to be very accurate; now.
Albino u know it's more than that inside one
That clip of Picard at 11:45 had me in tears! Thanks for the best laugh of 2024!
ohmygod same 😂😂
Same here!
Literally laughed until I cried!
Using pine cones to describe particle spin....there's a first time for everything!! Your video's break my brain, but they are purely amazing at describing complex concepts. Thank you!!
Haha I was out there filming thinking damn I need a prop, maybe these will do…
If you brain were " broken"(depending on what 'broken' means and it was a bloody silly word to use)you would mot experience anything for which the technical term is Dead*
Videos, not video's.
@@wehrewulfthis looks too basic of a mistake to make that i think this is the result of their autocorrect triggering incorrectly.
Maybe this is the answer to the Fermi Paradox. The best minds of every civilization waste so much time pondering blackhole conundrums they never get round to deflecting the asteroid.
OH, I thought they'd have gone into the black hole. Like, if you have to go in to find out, but the problem is you can't tell anyone back out of it, one solution is for everyone to go and live there : p
Fermi*
Most likely Fermi solution is that probably all civilized intelligent life will come from primitive life that is governed by the laws of survival and will be highly competitive, aggresive and tribal - in the transition to a civilized lifeform, those traits from nature is kept intact. The slope of the technology curve is steeper than the slope of "removal of tribal aggresive traits" in the lifeform's genetics. Basically, an advanced lifeform will invent nukes long before it manages to remove it's own tribal and agressive tendencies, thus nuclear armageddon likely wipes out most civilizations and solves the Fermi paradox. You can then do a P(Live) probability calculation on what the chance is that a lifeform evades nuclear armageddon long enough to fix it's own genome.
@@kellymartell1292 ah, thanks
@@KanedaSyndrome Well that's probably true in our case. You don't even need tribalism just a lunatic or a fanatic. We're already one election away from 'Hallelujah the missiles are flying'
"Who knew studying something so dark -" could be so enlightening! "- could reveal so much." oh
The way I had black holes explained to me as a child by a physics professor was to imagine a neutron star was reduced in radius to 1/6, to as little as 1/10th of its current diameter. He said that’s where he believes a round black mass (not a hole) resides. He also explained that light can not escape it because light can not exist inside of a black mass (hole), due to the extreme gravitational forces that quite literal rip apart what created the light. That conversation sparked my curiosity about the universe. This video reminded me of him. Thanks for that.
watching videos like these give me so much motivation to keep going in my PhD. i'm doing neuroscience and although it's not physics, i can definitely relate to that feeling of not knowing how to begin understanding the fundamental properties of what we're studying. the brain can sometimes feel like a black hole and i think that's pretty terrifying, but cool at the same time thanks for the video
Is not the difficulty therein that you are in the same position as a mirror that is trying to reflect itself which is like trying to catch or escape from your own shadow, for what would you use to examine the mind/ brain/brains, and of course fantasy language he such as " we" know/understand cannot help but only further muddy the water. "Who, by activity, can clear muddy water?" My mate Lao Tsu said that.
I love how much science can be built on top of math involving mass, without us having the slightest idea what mass is. Amazing to me.
Start by reading the Wikipedia entry on mass. There are KZhead videos that describe mass. Etc.
What it is, is more of a philosophical question. We don't need to know what something is to predict what it does. But it certainly would help with a deeper understanding of things.
@@douglaswilkinson5700nobody kmows what mass is, what are you talking about 😂
@@Itchyboy_ Mass is energy
@@Itchyboy_ Mass has been defined and described for quite some time now. Thanks to Einstein we even know the mass-energy equivalence: E=MC². We know these are accurate because of experimentation and observation.
PS: the notion of an event horizon being a surface which, once crossed, not even light can escape from, has led to the misconception that something _could_ cross that horizon back "outwards" if it went faster than light. However, the event horizon is the area underneath which spacetime is curved in such an eldritch way that this "outwards" doesn't even exist as a valid direction anymore, no matter at which speed one is traveling. It just happens to follow from the laws of general/special relativity that this surface is the same as the collection of points at which there is only one single direction that does _not_ point towards the singularity and to follow that direction, one must travel at light speed (c). (From some models of spacetime, it also follows that anything higher than c is simply not a valid speed: picture an object with no spatial velocity as traveling at c entirely through time- its speed vector points into the time dimention but not into any spatial dimension. Accelerating that object to any observable speed simply makes that vector point partly into spatial dimensions, but its absolute value always stays at c.)
The outdoor background is incredible. Wish more KZheadrs of your style would try it out. So refreshing ❤
This channel is just incredible! Thank you so much for making these ideas a little more accessible to non-experts like me. This universe is truly awesome.
Question for Dr. Kipping: Why can't a black hole be a fundamental particle that is spatially extended? - It is described by few numbers -Could the transition from quantum to macro and all it entails be happening at its boundary? Just on a bigger scale than we usually do quantum mechanics with? - With the properties listed here, what purpose could a spatially extended quantum particle serve in the standard model? - It seems quantum particles of the same type are indeterminate from each other. Can the information being erased make interactions with black holes as a particle uniformly non-unique? -If true that the singularity is more of a point in the future, can that be seen as imposing a type of locality relative to other black hole particles in the universe.? Just some thoughts on implications as I eat my lunch... Thanks for the videos.
Janna Levin actually describes them as being like elementary particles in the book I reference in the description, it's an intriguing connection...
@@CoolWorldsLab Thanks Professor, I will check that out. Very interesting!
This was an AMAZING description and explanation of several elements about black holes that never made sense to me. This is the power of a great teacher and communicator. Thank you
Except that he insists in using a straight up, flat-out wrong and incorrect explanation of Hawking radiation!! It’s complete and utter bullshit that there are a particle/antiparticle pair being created, blah blah. It’s such a moronic explanation because even antiparticles contain POSITIVE mass, there is no such thing as negative mass or energy. I still don’t understand why people such persist with such a massively incorrect explanation which has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually happens in reality regarding Hawking radiation.😱
David you talk science and I hear the poetry of reality. You give reality a voice and speak it so eloquently. I'm still riding that high from your recent Cool Worlds Podcast with Lisa which got followed by JMG's Event Horizon interview with Lisa. With these mental delights you are really spoiling us and I'm here for all the courses of this meal of galactic information. Love, love, love what you bring to the table of science presenters. You're a great teacher, your students must be thrilled to get to have you be their professor, I know I am. Disney's Black Hole was a nostalgic and much enjoyed opener. Be well David, grateful for what and how you do these things that you do.
Hey thanks so much, it’s wonderful to read that!
_In which we liiiive!_
You speak to most of us I was glad to see this i was thinking of rewatching the event horizon video then i saw this Cool worlds and eventhorizon are my two favorite channels 🎉 and i thank john for intruducing me to cool worlds And David interviewed lisa too ? When ?,
@@damianp7313 Apologies for my delay in replying. There is a separate Cool Worlds Podcast channel (on KZhead and I imagine on other podcast places but I love to see the conversation as well as listen to it) on which David does long-form one-to-one interviews with incredible, passionate and wonderful scientists. Highly recommended from me, a fellow Cool Worlds and Event Horizon fan, David talks casually yet in-depth with some truly fascinating people. Its a different format to this channel yet also similar because we have David being himself but talking shop so to speak and that is always welcomed. www.youtube.com/@CoolWorldsPodcast 12 episodes there, like and subscribe!
What exactly, pray, are you calling *" reality"*?What kind of pretentious bullshit is the"poetry" of reality"? You have no idea and were merely spitting out a random jumble of words? *No* surprises there. The poetry of *whose* reality little miss pretentia?
The only way i can, warp, my way around a black hole, is that they're simply entry points to other dimensions. Whenever our current dimensions' limits are reached, then it collapses onto the "next level", whatever that may be.
Let’s say there was a black hole close enough to reach by spacecraft. Would you volunteer to be the first known human to enter one? I’d be very tempted. It would most likely not end well, but…what if it did? How awesome would that be?!
I always love listening to your videos. I can’t fully comprehend all the information, but it is so fascinating
Same here haha
The example of the X/Y pairs of particles informed, almost gives off the idea that the inside of the black hole is a reflection of the outside universe. Like a reverse holographic universe.
I have a few questions based off statements made in this video. 1. Black holes are always described as an imploded star, and calculated with a stellar mass. Can black holes form by a cluster of matter that is not classified as a star? 2. Can the Black Hole's effect on light be related laminar and turbulent flow of water as it moves at higher speeds along a tube? Transient flow state being similar to the event horizon? 3. Can a black hole reverse or change it's spin due to external forces? 4. What happens when 2 black hole event horizons touch eachother? Obviously it is not a peaceful location in space, but if a particle is on the edge of the event horizon of each, where will it go? These may be silly questions but I don't know much about the fascinating topic
1. Our language is crude and will sublimate before our eyes whenever any word is deeply probed for actual/supposed meaning. Star is no different. In that regard, consider Mitchell's 1783 writings on Dark Stars as the precursor of what we now call Black Holes. Had Mitchell's label stuck, I wonder how it might have influenced people's intuitions on the topic. Anyway, bhs are presumed to come into being whenever enough energy is squeezed into a small enough space. "Small enough" is relative...to a respective amount of condensed/compactified energy. For instance, when the LHC was being built people were concerned its power output might be sufficient to create small/micro bhs right here on Earth. Had that happened, we could say the LHC first actually created a micro-star...that then collapsed into the end-state of a (micro) bh. So there's the rub. What really is a star? What deserves the label? What doesn't? And who's the authority for making that determination? Some large stars (between 8-25 times the size of our sun) collapse down to 'only' a bunch of tightly packed neutrons in the space of about 1/10 the size of the moon. Is it really proper to call that thing a star? Zero fusion goes on there...totally unlike our intuition of what we typically think about when it comes to stars. But bring two neutron (space thingies) together and they will death spiral into a bh. Still, a very large stellar object wildly fusing elements together will shine bright like the star it supposedly is...until it runs out of fuel. Then it implodes. Because of all its energy, it will transform straight away into a (Stellar) bh. It's the agglomeration of a bunch of these kind of bhs that are thought to be responsible for the Super Massive bhs present in the center of galaxies.* Finally, way before the universe ever created its first star, it is theorized primordial (relic) bhs could have been created given how hot and dense things were way back then. Astronomers are on the lookout for them. Possibly one has even been captured by our sun...and it's responsible for causing effects that are currently (speculatively) attributed to the yet-to-be-found Planet 9. And now that we've essentially updated energy to being the equivalent of information, the same holds true for computer storage. We keep finding ways to miniaturize memory hardware. We will only ever be able to go so far however. Packing enough data (information) into too small a space can produce a bh. As such, the universe 'conspires' to keep us from ever fully simulating it (i.e., finding out all its secrets). *One final reveling in the crudeness of our words and how we sling them around all willy-nilly...the SM bh of our Milky Way galaxy is called...Sagittarius A Star!! A bit of posthumous redemption for ol' Mitchell. 👍
What if black holes don't actually collapse entirely but instead reach an entirely new stage of degenerate matter that just so happens to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light?
That’s my theory. I think it’s a sphere of dense matter with gravitational pull much stronger than a neutron star.
@@MrNismopro Yeah, I don't really understand why this wouldn't be the case.
What I like about your videos is that you manage it to not "loose" your viewers on the yourney. Everytime. Well done, mate!
Do you mean lose
@@baphead1 Most certainly. My fingers have been too quick on the keyboard. 😀
Dr. K it's been a while since I've enjoyed the cool world lab content...just hadn't been showing up in my scrolling :( & sadly until I stumbled across your Lex F conversation I have only seen a video or 2 in over a yr! Sorry mate, it's truly my loss & am glad the universe brought me back to these masterpiece creations. I love the angles and approach you take to providing us with knowledge & somehow still offer an aspect of entertainment. Well balanced, perfectly done, excellent execution. Thank you & all the team for binging us quality. Stay blessed & know that we all appreciate what you folks do to bring us what we crave. I've had great teachers but have learned much more important & relevant info from KZhead, you & the handful of others I trust to tell accurate facts but also the many theories that stimulate our brains, in agreement or skeptical hardly do i ever doubt or totally dismiss what genius scientists believe but even what may not strike me as possible but questioning things alone leads to my own theories but prefer the term hypothesis because what y'all do is the definition of educated guesses at very least. Glad to be back, stay blessed everybody
Oh lor that clip from the old 80s The Black Hole movie sucked me right in. I started to type this realize what I was saying and I'm just going to leave it there. I'm still not quite up to speed on modern astrophysics, but your explanations for Jane Q Public invoking the Heisenberg principle, entanglement and Hawking radiation dinally explained to me why even black holes will decy in the long run (maybe). As a classics major, I still think poor old Parmenides of Elea deserves more credit than he gets for slamming bang up against this paradox, even if he got there by thought experiment and an ambiguity of Greek language (ancient Greek "to be" covers both the idea of "to exist" and "to become," but he didn't catch the distinction; he asserted that "is not" is a logical impossibility, and change is the creation of something which wasn't, so it's an illusion. He was poking at tge idea that matter cannot cease to exist.)
You effing blow my mind every time. Great stuff! Keep it up.
They don't break the universe. We just don't know how it works.
What, pray, are you calling " the universe", apart from imaginary, which of course - being an universal, it clearly is, albeit that some instances of it can be experienced? " We"(as in"we just don't know how it works.") being, or indicating you, and which specific identifiable interlocutor? *Is* there a " we"? What leads either you or your (also imaginary) interlocutor to suppose that there*are* any so-called" black holes", which - as I understand it, are merely notional , imaginary or supposed or believed to exist? Supposing that you do can, or have or have had , direct immediate personal experience of one of your famous and imaginary "black holes", how would you*know* that it was a "black hole"? I rather suppose that I or even my servants could point at any random bit of sky and declare" *There*is the invisible aeroplane for which you paid so many billions, because *anyone* could, for who could gainsay them/me? Might it perhaps be that*only* those that can stand on one leg on the back of a unicorn and recite the lord's prayer backwards in Swahili can experience or otherwise apprehend a " black hole", or are black holes like fairies - they can only be apprehended if you are a very small child and declare that you really really, really *believe_in" black holes/fairies which are shy and sensitive creatures that cannot abide any sort of scepticism? I would have thought that your famous and imaginary black holes were impossible which may be why neither you nor anyone else has or has had, direct immediate personal experience of a "black hole", because, black holes are -exactly like what some call" the universe" are imaginary(cannot be directly immediately personally experienced). I suspect that your famous and imaginary" black holes are like the Loch Ness monster- could not possibly exist for fairly obvious and practical reasons. Moreover on wonders how the imaginary could" break" the imaginary.
@@vhawk1951kl🫵😂
Your video explained a number of things that I never understood but now you have given me a number of new things that are fascinating and mind-expanding to think about. You very neatly used examples of discarding assumptions when the answers are incompatible or incomplete. Live presentation of high science outdoors and using two pine cones was wonderfully refreshing and a really cool way of illustrating entanglement.
Awesome video as always. It's soooooo soothing listening to your videos. The audio from all these videos really should be on Spotify.
I remember the video with the Minkowski Space Time Diagram. I literally drew it out on paper. I have lost count of how many times I have watched that video.
Cool Worlds coming in hot on 4/20! It’s like you know! 😂
Great video as always, thank you, and keep up the great work 👍
Relaxing stuff, while also educational. The laidback delivery makes it easier to lock in on what’s being said, not to mention the lack of intrusive music.
So way beyond my understanding yet so fascinating !
The best thing all week: smoked a bowl and found new Astrum AND Cool Worlds videos love you guys
I’ll never understand dope smokers, but hey, if you feel good, then have at it.
@@Mark_Jacobson81 some "dope smokers" use it as a prescription medication for many symptoms but go off I guess.
@@Mark_Jacobson81 I'll never understand narrow-minded people who don't understand the medicinal properties of a plant that's been used to treat multiple symptoms for thousands of years, but sure, go off I guess
@@GIJRock sure sure 👍
Love these sorts of discussions, but omg, it makes my head hurt. Thanks!
Worth noting that AdS/CFT only works for anti-de Sitter space with constant negative curvature, while our universe is more like the opposite, de-Sitter one, with positive curvature. So all that hologram stuff does not apply to us, only to some toy models of toy universes.
The "you can't escape a black hole because it has an unreachable escape velocity" explanation does not really satisfy my brain... After all I can leave our solar system without ever reaching its escape velocity. As long as I have enough fuel to burn and resist the pull of gravity / curvature of spacetime my spaceship might crawl out of the solar system with snail speed. So there must be more to it than just escape velocity greater than the speed of light.
"Resisting the pull of gravity / curvature of spacetime" is escape velocity... The only way you leave the solar system is by achieving escape velocity, even if you perceive it as a "crawl".
You are correct. It has nothing to do with escape velocity and everything to do with time dilation. See kzhead.info/sun/p92xmN1vsIysaY0/bejne.htmlsi=r5C30eMnvJUfpYoC for a better explanation. Escape velocity is only relevant for ballistic trajectories.
Remember this is just the classical analogy, but to answer your thought experiment. Let’s imagine you try to crawl out of Earths gravity at a slow speed and let’s ignore the atmosphere. Earths escape velocity is 11km/s. So you’d need a rocket that produces a Delta-v of 11 km/s just to hover above the ground. To actually leave at a slow speed, you need slightly greater than 11 km/s. I hope that helps!
@@chronoflect You are absolutely correct. What I meant to say was: you do not need to reach escape velocity here on earths surface or orbit. You can "crawl" away from here and exceed escape velocity somewhere behind Neptune or so... Point of my initial question: Why can't I just "crawl" out of the black holes event horizon?
@@sauerland_fella Except, how do you get to Neptune? Even if you never reach the escape velocity of your starting point, you're still expending the same amount of energy to get away. So when the escape velocity is the speed of light, the energy required becomes infinite.
In my modified D&D campaign setting, black holes are fonts of the power cosmic, the building block of the multiverse, and can be used as transit points for higher powers, every black hole is linked to its galactic core, and the galactic core is linked to the universal black hole, which links the universes together.
There are very few channels on KZhead that have amazing quality. Cool Worlds makes my top five. To me this channel feels simular to the old school History Channel mixed with a little bit of COSMOS and PBS/NOVA. Its educational, its engaging, it discusses deep intresting topics which at times can be introspective. Its not overburdening with a lot of science jargon, nor is it diluted with oversimplification... His voice is so calm and relaxing, I give him my full attention during his videos. I appreciate the time and effort he and his team puts into these videos.
You, sir, and your team, are poets. Thank you.
Take that back I would never watch poets
I don't get it. If you have a pair of virtual particles appear on the event horizon, one goes in, one goes out. There is no loss of mass from the black hole, it should be a gain. If it's a pair of matter-antimatter particles, the same number of matter and antimatter particles should be absorbed and, even if an antimatter particle is captured by a black hole, then still the annihilation would generate energy that would have to escape the black hole somehow. If there is a pair of energy and negative energy fluctuations, that might work, but only in the case that more negative energy goes in. As far as I know, we don't acknowledge negative energy, unless it's in equations for warp drives and artificial wormholes. What am I missing? Edit: you specifically talked about negative energy, so there's no antimatter involved, that's good. That still doesn't explain why there is more negative energy absorbed than positive from virtual particles.
That's because that explanation is entirely pop sci and almost completely wrong. Another problem with this explanation is that it would imply larger black holes evaporate faster because they have more surface area, but in reality black holes evaporate faster as they get smaller, not larger. PBS Space Time did a good video on hawking radiation that explains more (it's a bit beyond me).
@@chronoflectDr. Hawking's description of Hawking Radiation is described with quantum mechanics and advanced mathematics. It is difficult at best to summarize and simplify it for the general public.
The short answer is that the one that comes out has positive energy and the one that goes in has negative energy, hence it subtracts mass off the singularity. The better way to think about it in four vector momenta space (if you’ve done any relativity). In Euclidean space the particle pair has positive energy but opposite momentum. Because in the Penrose diagram time and space rotate beyond the event horizon, the negative momentum becomes negative energy.
Using phonon analogs, scientists were able to observe negative mass characteristics of a wave form through a medium. If this holds true for even ripples in space-time, then maybe photon or gravity wave occultation could be considered a product of alternating positive and negative energy. Just something to think about that may make this scenario more interesting going forward
@@CoolWorldsLab Thanks. That gave me the correct starting point for larger explanations on what is going on.
Great video that succinctly explains the whole black hole war debate and where the problem currently stands. This is why I love Cool Worlds!
I just subscribed to this channel today after seeing this video. Now I'm binging on the content and loving it! I found the channel because of a conversation on another channel that mntiond pbs spacetime as well as this channel and since i love pbs spacetime i figured i should check out cool worlds. I have not been disappointed by what i found, i remember seeing the scholar narrating on another channel discussing the time on the telescope and was interested. So glad i checked it out!! Thanks for giving me more great science to binge on!
Yesterday an upload by ParallaxNick and this one today, makes for a good weekend!
I never heard of that channel before, but I just checked it out and watched 2 videos so far. Sub worthy for sure.
@@fffrrraannkkI also never heard of that channel and I’m about to check it out now lol
Perfect video for the afternoon. Good afternoon everybody!. Hope you're doing well David.
You are an excellent storyteller and educator. I’ve always been so fascinated by space and love watching these videos, it makes me feel like a kid again being blown away by how amazing our universe is. While I’m not smart enough anymore to pursue a career in this field, I’ll always gain knowledge through these. I remember getting bullied about my love for science at a young age but I’m a proud “nerd” now!
Bravo My Friend... Great and easy to understand explanation of the current ideas about black holes!
Interestingly, the sequence at @18:26 shows that Hawking radiation is a misconception. First, it is particles, not photons. If it is a particle coming into existence just AT the event horizon, where the escape velocity is very close to the speed of light, then it will NOT move radially away from the black hole. It will enter an orbit, and eventually, after a long time, fall back beyond the event horizon. The virtual particles may come into existence as a quantum effect, but their energy is necessarily below that escape velocity. Since their is no Hawking radiation that would result in a sustainable separation, it is just a delayed re-unification. All the follow up paradoxes are true paradoxes, meaning, misunderstandings. Secondly, however, there is another issue. According to quantum theory, those particles jump into existence out of nothing, not from something. Hence the only information they actually would carry is that there was space where they popped into existence. Third, about the hologram, here we meet a self-imposed blindness. Mathematically, it seems that all the information of a 3d body can be mapped onto a 2d surface, using Cantor's thoughts. However, in contrast to the set of real numbers, space does not have an infinite number of decimals. Latest at the Planck length we can not speak meaningfully about countability/enumerability any more. The central idea of that mapping turn out to be a simple trap in language (see Wittgenstein for this term). Hence there is no "universe as a hologram"
If you actually understood Hawking radiation you’d know this whole video is pretty much pointless. It’s such a pathetic and completely incorrect explanation of Hawking radiation, when particle-antiparticle pairs are mentioned. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with such phenomenon, it’s purely RADIATION, which is so surprising, given the name… duh!
@@aaronperelmuter8433 First it is indeed about particles. However I admit to have overlooked that also antimatter particles could escape, and later collide with ordinary matter, creating radiation, of which some could be emitted away from the BH. But that's not the radiation meant by hawking. second, the assumption is "Close to the event horizon of a black hole, a local observer must accelerate to keep from falling in" , which creates the hypothetical ""thermal bath". Yes, objects indeed fall in, and the acceleration is away from the BH, hence they observe the thermal bath from the opposite direction, shining then to the BH, not away from it. And this is only for he observer orbiting the BH, not for he BH itself.
What? It IS about particles? Really? If that’s the case, please explain to me what kind of particles does radiation consist of? The ONLY kind of radiation is EM radiation, which is obviously not a particle. Ok, photons are but that’s the only particle which is ever emitted by Hawking radiation, NOT actual particles of matter, which is my point. Furthermore, it’s just inconceivable that at the exact right time when the bh is getting smaller, these “particles” would necessarily have to be created with higher and higher energies, but not randomly, in lock step with the reducing mass of bh. Because as the bh gets smaller, it starts radiating more and more Hawking radiation. Alongside that, the gravity felt at or extremely close to the eh is getting stronger as the bh gets smaller. Which means that SO many completely unconnected things have to occur, all by magic, apparently. If you actually understood Hawking radiation, you’d know it has nothing whatsoever to do with particles of any sort, it’s created by the bh causing ‘disturbances’ to the background spacetime. What particles, exactly, is it you think Hawking radiation creates and how could any particles, of any description account for the rising temperature of the bh as it emits Hawking radiation? Explain how that occurs, please. Oh wait, that’s right, you can’t because temperature has nothing to do with particles, when in a non-closed system. Only RADIATION can make temperature increase in such a situation, just as the sun makes the temp on mercury very high, not because of particles, but due to the EM radiation. This is obviously extremely simplified but I’m trying to make the point that Hawking radiation has nothing to do with particles. Watch the PBS Spacetime episode about Hawking radiation if you want to get a basic understanding of how the phenomenon ACTUALLY occurs. Finally, what do you mean when you say that an “assumption creates a hypothetical thermal bath”? How can an assumption create ANYTHING at all? It’s just so,etching a person thought of, and their thoughts are supposed to create some kind of thermal bath? WTF, how? Moreover, if the thermal bath is hypothetical, how can it ever be observed, as you state it is? That’s completely ridiculous, that something hypothetical can be observed, that makes absolutely no sense at all!
The way you write screams mental illness. The emotional framing and random capitalisation do not serve your arguments well.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 PBS space time on hawking radiation, @10:53, quote, "it is hard to avoid the conclusion that black holes emit particles". Well, only if the energy is sufficient to cover up the rest mass. For those my argument is still valid. Yet, even if we consider that from QFT we may deal just with positive and negative modes of QF oscillations, that would mean that there should be sth like anti-photons, which are not really part of any theory. According to PBS, those photons/particles that seem to be evaporate from the BH are actually only de-virtualized QF oscillations, meaning the energy was already there, on the other side of the BH.
I think black holes doesn't exist. I think is something else that we don't understand and the explanation is much simpler.. there I said it... 😂
I had doubts you were in an actual forest until you pulled out pine cone electrons. It's really impressive how comprehensive you can make complex topics like this.
I’m undecided about the validity of black hole and big bang theories, but I enjoyed your description of the theoretical phenomena.
Just because information is being stored in a way that means you can't access it, is no reason to declare it "destroyed". Thinking of this as a paradox is just arrogance.
Black holes are the end of time, as Brian Cox put it. It is not arrogance to suggest such information is permanently lost or destroyed. It is simply a product of our current understanding of the laws of physics.
I don't think its arrogance, its merely a limit of our current understanding.
I have so many questions. 1) I've heard the virtual particle explaination of hawking radiation is misleading. Can you speak to that? 2) Can you explain why multi-particle entanglement isn't allowed? That doesn't jive with my understanding of entanglement. 3) It seems like the firewall is only observed by the outside observer which shouldn't violate the equivalence pricipal, right? The outside observer sees the astronaut get smeared out around the firewall while the astronaut doesn't see anything special and gets spegetified. 4) Wouldn't adding matter to the black hole increase its schwartzchild radius? It seems like if two astronaughts fell into a black hole one after the other, the first one would spread out over the event horizon and expand the event horizon at the same time then the other one would spread out over the event horizon and expand the event horizon at the same time, so if the first astronaut appeared stuck in place right above the event horizon, it should be swallowed after the second astronaut falls in because the event horizon got bigger. Right? 5) Didn't Hawking eventually conclude that the uncertainty principle meant that the exact location of the singularity and event horizon were uncertain and this would express itself as undulations in the event horizon surface? It seems like, in the previous example of two astronauts falling in that, from an outside observer's perspective, the fact that the astronauts both stop in time, smear out over the event horizon, and grow the event horizon means that everything falling into the BH would kind-of pancake ontop of eachother in layers (from the POV of an outside observer) and the undulating surface of the eventhorizon would expose some of what's in the black hole and unstick it from time (in a way) so it can escape out as radiation.
1) it isn’t misleading, it’s complete bullshit. I still can’t understand why anyone persists with such a ridiculous explanation of Hawking radiation. Hawking himself regretted providing such an explanation which is absolutely and completely wrong. Particles have nothing whatsoever to do with Hawking radiation, which is surprising, given that the word RADIATION is in the name of the phenomenon. 2) no idea what he means as it’s definitely possible to entangle more than 3+ particles, so why he said that it isn’t is beyond me. He’s completely wrong if that’s what he actually meant. 3) the firewall isn’t real and is never observed by any observer. Not really sure what you think this has to do with the equivalence principle as there is no connection between these 2 concepts. 4) yes, of course it does, adding anything to a bh results in the eh growing as the Schwarzchild radius is determined purely by the mass of the bh. 5) not sure if he did or didn’t but I’ve definitely never heard about undulating eh’s due to pancaking, as you put it. Moreover, your premise is flawed as it’s only from an outside observer’s PERSPECTIVE that anything gets frozen at the eh. In reality, we know that this never occurs and everything getting to the eh passes through and into the bh without any drama. Hope that helps a bit mate.
Watching this feels like taking a journey to the edge of the universe and back! Absolutely mind-bending stuff!
I knew it. science proves that 2D waifus are just as good as 3D.
Stay away from my Pokemon full art trainer cards! 😤
based pfp
Thanks for the science, philosophy and poetry, dr. Kipping! 😊 I hope some day we can get some answers... But don't expect to get them without many, many more questions! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Just want to say I love your work. Keep it up.
The firewall makes far more sense when you consider the time dilation involved. As you approach the EH it increases asymptotically pushing everything forwards into time at a near infinite rate - and length contracting the rest of the universe down on top of you. This is the 'firewall'. The temperatures would approach plank temp, so yeah, toasty.
Absolutely the best presenter on the internet. Mesmerizing, intriguing, and thought provoking.
Anything that starts with a scene from The Black Hole is a winner in my book! I love that movie. Saw it in theaters a bunch of time when it came out. Even at age 12, I saw that it was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. Anyway, it’s mind-blowing to me how much our understanding of black holes has advanced, evolved, and completely changed since 1979. I’m still fascinated by all of it. One of the best things about being alive today is that we can now admit that we don’t know things instead of using the "cop out." It’s not the cop-out of "aliens did it," but rather the cop-out of "because God…" I still know plenty of people who attribute everything they don’t know or understand to a god, but I love that scientists no longer feel the need to say that kind of nonsense.
Man, I watched your FTL video and then this and now my brain feels like it’s just exploded from all this information and all these theories. This stuff is stranger than even some sci fi movies and shows.
fascinating as usual. im going to have watch it again...as usual.
I’ve watched this a few times now. It’s super fascinating and might be a new favorite! Excellent work! 💖👏👏👏👏
Just by the title alone I can tell that this is the kind of video I subscribed for.
Your videos are the abyss's of the universe. The time dilation is astounding...22 minutes feels like 6 minutes due the the effects of special intrests along with general curiosity. The gravitational subject matter mixed with the quantum entanglement of my brain cells is proof my hypothesis should at least be considered a valid prospect, if not proven an actual theory
Note: There is no swapping of space and time, in any physical sense. One can always write down different coordinates for which this does not happen, e.g. ds^2=-dt^2+(dr+βdt)^2+r^2dΩ^2 where β is the free-fall velocity for an object released from infinity and dΩ^2 is the metric on the unit sphere.
Check out this YT short which does a great job explaining this kzhead.infojhEzsT-TY7g?si=clqmDJdH2TBtbMki
@@CoolWorldsLab I wouldn't pay any attention to that short: He's using Schwarzschild-Droste coordinates which are undefined at 2m, he imagines things get "crushed" in spacetime governed solely by the Weyl curvature [the other videos on the channel look good]. Sure, the world-time and r-coordinate switch algebraic sign in the arithmetic but nothing happens, physically, falling into a black hole. If this swapping was an observable of the theory it would be independent of the coordinates.
You seem to be more apt at this math, so I have a question… Is it possible for an unseen rebound to potentially have occurred leading to a “Black Bubble” rather than Ringularity, with potentially having both an external and internal event horizon pointing in opposite directions?
@@MarsStarcruiser You need to keep in mind that the Kerr solution is an axisymmetric vacuum solution and we don't have any rotating collapse solutions that lead to the Kerr geometry. That said, I don't know what it would mean to have a pair of horizon pointing in opposite directions.
@@kylelochlann5053 I came to wonder about this after watching the simulations based on patterns for black hole mergers, detected by LIGO, over and over. Still don’t know lol, but maybe one day we’ll make better sense of that.
Outstanding as always, Dr. Kipping!
A couple of questions: 1. Re: Hawking radiation If 1 of 2 spontaneously generated particles falls into the balck hole, how does that event count as a loss of black hole mass? Is that particle massless? If not, wouldn't that represent an *increase* in the black hole mass rather than an evaporation of it? 2. Time flow near the Schwartzchild boundary slows to zero relative to a distent inertial reference frame (such as that given by the CBR). How can these events you describe occur in our perspective with no time flow?
Thank you for sharing the video it was very interesting and fascinating. ❤
Thanks for all those explanations! Quantum theory is hard to grasp, especially when it collides with general relativity. But you somehow managed to make it understandable and clear for once (at least for me).
Prof, Im going to go back to thinking about finding Cool Worlds and other Exoplanets. That doesn’t make me question my own mental acumen as much! Great video!
Thanks for explaining things in a digestable way
Waw. This vision of black holes(are they?)blew my mind. Allot i didn’t knew. Amazing...thank you.
so why isn't the star that formed the black hole merely sitting immediately beneath or at the event horizon, frozen in time (in our reference frame)? when physicists talk about falling toward the singularity, they're speaking of what happens in the reference frame of the person falling in, but from the outside, that person is frozen at the surface. thus, it seems as though it must be the case that for a person falling into a black hole at any time after it has formed, they are actually falling into the reference frame of the star that formed it, that to an outside observer (which a person falling in must be before they, well... fall in) is just immediately at the surface of the event horizon, waiting for them. so wouldn't any observer falling in be immediately obliterated by that star?
Because it’s fuel ran out and it underwent GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE to form said bh!! How could it possibly still be in existence? Do you actually understand the process of stellar bh formation? I’m guessing no, because if you did you’d know that there’s no possibility of preventing stellar collapse once a star runs out of fuel. By what physical phenomenon could a star possibly exist just within the eh of a bh? There’s nothing that is able to prevent gravitational collapse, which is why your whole premise is nonsensical, there’s no logic to it.
No, that's not right. The faraway observer measures the traveler to vanish at the horizon - NOT stay there.
@@kylelochlann5053 well if by that you mean the traveler's image redshifts to infinity, then yes, they appear to vanish, but crucially, an outside observer cannot observe the traveler crossing the event horizon, otherwise it's not an event horizon. for all outside reference frames, nothing actually passes through the event horizon. so the star hasn't either.
@@antimatterhorn Everything crosses the horizon, not be able to watch this happen has nothing to do with it happening. That everything crosses in finite time is obvious from the Penrose-Carter diagrams or any choice of coordinates that include the horizon, e.g. Gullstrand-Painleve. The horizon has nothing to do per se with anything crossing it. A horizon is an observer independent causal structure on the gravitational field that is the outermost trapped surface defined by the behavior of principle normal null curves. It is the case that there are no causal curves that extend from the trapped surface into the exterior spacetime.
@@kylelochlann5053 i believe you're describing an "apparent" horizon as appears during acceleration. the event horizon and the outermost trapped surface are in the same location, but are not identical things.
I love videos on this kind of stuff and I enjoyed the content of this one Could I offer a bit of viewer feedback? I much preferred your speech delivery from the outdoor mic shots. Your voiceover speech delivery I found very distracting, as it was slower, softer and more dramatic. I found it a bit frustrating to stay with the subject as the delivery and pace of narration kept changing. Otherwise, great content :)
I watched this 1979 Disney movie "The Black Hole" as a teenager, and I was horrified by the blood, guts and gore it had shown. Walt Disney would have been horrified that this movie was made under his name. Now I am 70 years old I seek the proper data of what this phenomenon actually is. The observation requires an Anthropomorphic observer but that is a human thing, and not a Universal thing. Professor David Kipping is my favourite teacher of life itself.
Recognized your inconfundible voice on the melodysheep last vid. Great to see u there. 💪
Always love your videos. Thanks for contributing to Melody sheep, too.
The master hits with a hit, yet again! ❤
Perhaps the simplest way to resolve the information paradox is to reconsider the assumption that black holes exist. While this proposition may be discomforting for those who have dedicated decades to their theoretical study, the definition of a black hole hinges on the existence of an event horizon. According to relativity, however, for an external observer, no particle can ever be observed falling into a black hole (i.e., crossing the event horizon) due to infinite time dilation. What holds true now has always been true in the past, meaning that from any observation point within our universe, no particle has ever fallen into a black hole. Therefore, the so-called "black hole" would be empty, with no event horizon existing in the first place. In this conception, "black holes" are merely regions of extreme space-time curvature, lacking an event horizon, and they are not eternal due to an equivalent of Hawking radiation. In this model, information is merely temporarily confined within the curvature of space-time and never truly disappears. Can someone identify where my reasoning may be flawed?
What a fantastically fascinating video, thank you so much 👍🏻
Absolutely brilliant video. Thank you
Got this and Veritasium's new black hole video recently served up to me by YT as a recommended entangled viewing pair. 👍
love Cool Worlds. Thanks for the vid drop
Really enjoyed that. Thanks.
What gets me is we live in a universe with problems like this, things that challenge our very understanding of reality itself.. but we still have people saying the earth is flat and bickering about things like border control. We ain't gonna make it.. are we?
Never seen this channel before but this video is absolutely great. Instant sub
Always excellent and thought-provoking. An observation: If the simplest way to resolve a paradox is to abandon one of the principles on which it arises and this paradox has come about as a result of Hawking radiation, then one may wonder if it is real? Beware of 'phenomena' that can't be measured, maybe they don't exist. Eh, string theorists? On a related aside it's my probably imperfect understanding that Hawking radiation is itself based in an assumption or two we are not in a position to prove... and so maybe 'It's elephants all the way down'.
One thing I don't understand about Hawking Radiation (not the only thing, mind you), is if this "phantom" particle falling into the black hole while it's counterpart escapes generates positive energy, then doesn't that prove in effect that negative mass exists, since the particle that fell in has to have a negative mass to reduce the total energy of the black hole? And isn't that exactly the kind of thing one would need to do a whole lot of crazy FTL things that have been theorized? From warp bubbles to keeping wormholes open and stable?
10;23 Faster than light communication has been part of the story in a couple of sci fi movies I have recently watched. I guess this was necessary to tell the story in a timely manner.
For me, you spark more new insights than most everyone else
The end “Who knew researching something so dark, could be so enlightening”. You almost had it!
I think black holes are a huge clue to the origin of the universe. I think they are trying to tell us something important about the Big Bang singularity.
At 13:58 this has always been my imagination of how the universe works. A star that dies and coverts to a black hole swallows all the information surrounding it, and it explodes through the opposite side of a black hole in what would be another big bang. Fun to imagine the cycle continues…
What if black holes where places where, kind of like the cracks that form when tectonic plates move, brings new stuff up into the universe? Or what if they were the sign of our decaying universe? If the universe is expanding, it means that there's either new things being added (empty space counting as something) or that actual void (so space that is non existant rather than empty) is taking the space created by the expansion like cracks in a road. As for the principle of unitarity, I think it has to take into account that reactions naturally occur to reverse something. Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. That's what Hubert Reeves, a canadian scientist, said. So as long as you take what exists to reverse a process, it would be valid. A book burns because of a chemical reaction. It means that, in order to reverse the state of a burned book, you have to use chemical reactions that undo that process. Chemical reactions can go from composting the ashes to grow some trees and reprinting the same book from the trees you grew using the ashes, to using synthetic products and technology to atomically reconstruct the book.