I am reminded that since, in cosmological time, we've only been observing the universe from the perspective of a single point for a fraction of a moment in time as we understand it, we really know almost nothing at all and all of our theories of existence are tentative. At our present state of evolution, we can never hope to reach an understanding of the thing, but perhaps this is a case where the journey is more important than the destination. Dr. Verlinde has given me a glimpse of that journey. Thinking back on what I have just viewed has given me goose bumps! Thank you for the ride.
John If you are interested in looking at this concept of a universe constructed on information, you might enjoy this interview reflecting on universal truths gained through art and life experience but coming to the very same conclusion. ruclips.net/video/HlMgGkwWUNY/видео.html
Great out of the box thinking. If confirmed, being able to knock a fundamental force from the standard model would be more of an achievement than just a nobel prize!
What I like about Verlinde, is that he is a Dutch scientist, doing a very good job. Do check Lewin and Dijkgraaf, working for famous American universities. Those two love explaining things.
If he would cause a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, more people would benefit NOW. Implications for the future could be interesting. Burning Texas oil is not the way we all should get energy. Burning is wasting material. Gone. Only some gasses left. Hope this new science finds CLEAN energy from atom cores. Without your old age persons all dying from cancer. Ever noticed THEY DO?!
Excellent introduction to the field leading up to the new idea that is described at 42 minutes. I find it perplexing that the Stanford crowd have not visibly discussed Eric Verlinde's concept. They are after all keenly interested in the collision of information theory and black hole horizons. Of course there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that dark matter exists, the keystone of which is that simulations of the evolution of the distribution of matter in the universe works with dark matter. Eric seems well justified in persuing the concept currently.
I am not a physicist. But I think I can follow some of the key ideas. Good talk. I like the new view of how matters in our cosmos may interact through information.
I hope is not too late to share a comment about this wonderful lecture. I am fascinated with Dr Erik Verlinde and his view on how many scientists for many years have been 'orbiting' around Newton's law of GRAVITY without realizing that something was missing and another approach was needed in order to solve the Big Questions. If my intuition is right, Dr Verlinde might have come across a work from an amateur that challenged the idea of Impact craters in 2006 at the 1st International Conference of Impact Craters organized by ESA in Holland. It was my work. Large Scale Gas Bubbles Bursting Mechanism Vs Impact Craters. I was confident to question to everyone in that conference what Verlinde said about the scientist jumping to conclusions without knowing much of what things are made of. I questioned how gravity was wrongly seen and calculated to justify perpendicular impacts from a meteor or asteroid. I questioned how a scientist can calculate the gravity of a distant planet if they don't know how many gas bubbles are trapped inside its body? That clearly affects density, therefore the mass and the whole calculation of gravity. Right? haha, Later Prof Brian Cox explained in a documentary that actually the gravity in other distant planets could be estimated by their capacity to hold an atmosphere. Also liked that Dr Verlinde opposes the idea of the Big Bang. I support him 100% If I was right with the gas bubble bursting on the surface of planets as the mechanism that shaped craters, then those planets were droplets of fluid matter that must have come from a high energy event and were experiencing basic principles of Thermodynamics. Inevitably, This thought led me to rethink the Big Bang too. I called it the Big Sneeze. ; ) I am not a physicist and not a theorist, but have always been inspired by Richard Feynman lectures and interviews. It was very reassuring to hear Dr Verlinde views on Gravity, Thermodynamics and black holes. I don't feel like a fish out of the water anymore. Thank you for such amazing lecture.
Well, that was disappointing. An hour spent introducing the underlying concepts then.. nothing. End of discussion. I'm sure I'm not alone in already having a good grasp of all the underlying concepts before watching this. What I was hoping for was some elucidation of this new theory. I wanted to get to the meat. Sadly we are left none the wiser for watching this.
@@user-lb8qx8yl8khe concept is simple. Gravity is the deformation of space time like in any slope it goes up one way and goes down the other and actually does not move. Add a dimension it expands and contracts depending in where you look and does not move at all. At quantum level the space is flat and empty but particle and anti particle pop in and out. A funny way of seeing that is an infinit row of chair and on it is an infinit football team. That is empty space. Is there room for one more player Yes. Player one gets up and moves to seat of number 2 who gets up and move to ... That is a gravitational wave. It works like an edge dislocation in a metal that is bent. Matter is shards of space time. Now make the row move one way and the team an other, that is gravity and space time bending. An other way of looking at it is : pull on a stocking, that ilustate a black hole. Now if you take the fabric where you pinch as your frame of reference, it appears that a dark energy is pushing the fabric away from you. 😅 It means that who is wearing the stocking is pulling there way. Seeing the size difference between dark energy and our univers i would say we are pulling on the stocking of our mother 😂 And every black hole is our children universe.😮 I think that is what he is saying but he dies not want to say. Because today is the leading edge of the universe ❤... eternaly. So yes. It is pretty static and dynamic all at once.
Dark matter never seemed to be a plausable explanation for galaxy rotation curves. The anamalous gravitational changes always happen at the same distance from the galactic center. That would mean that Dark Matter would have to be distributed in a very specific way each and every time. Verlinde's theory does away with this ad hoc methodology and replaces it with what so far has had some empirically verified mathematics. Can you say "future Nobel winner"? I hope he's right!
Mixing elasticity, entanglement, qubits, produced Verlinde's emergent gravity theory. What remains is to merge 3-d information on 2-d surface, which he claims to be an assumption.
Mike Petersen: Agree completely. I never completely bought into the Dark Matter / Dark Energy theory. Always seemed like a lame fudge factor to make the equations work.
I attended the lecture and found it thought-provoking. Like many people today, the speaker (Erik Verlinde) is bothered about the band-aid invention of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY ("how can we claim that 95% of the universe is missing with no experimental evidence"). He alluded to the fact that these DARK topics are similar to the previous century's PLANET VULCAN (postulated to explain the strange orbit of Mercury before Einstein's General Theory of Relativity)
Dark Matter and Dark Energy were not "invented", they are an intricate derivative of currently known cosmology. The universe does not conform to our views on how it should be, the best evidence still predicts dark matter and dark energy. Nobody believed Einstein for years, yet he has been 100% correct on every count of relativity, every prediction made has been confirmed and no other model currently exists that comes even close to challenging this. Any new model would need to still be as accurate as his but also go drastically further, without "inventing" new physics or observations.
Nicholas Bolding. Where do you get your information from, that can be condensed into your above comment? There are numerous volumes of scientific papers, from every camp, that are contrary to what you have stated. I'm still undecided. Once one ventures into Quantum Field, it seems to come undone. Doesn't really matter which way I look; out or in, I end up dizzy anyway.
Dark Matter has never been observed, only inferred like epicycles. In fact, both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are identical to epicycles, constructed so we don't have to admit that our formulas for gravity are wrong.
I totally agree with you Dr. Verlinde about your uneasy feeling of how gravity has been described. I have felt that my whole life. I also feel like you are on the very much the right tract. Please keep up the brilliant research. It would be the most impactful science in history to achieve a correct theory of gravity.
I want to point out that his claim that the deviation occurs at a "very specific point" is a lie. The deviation occurs at the point where the mass drops off. This has been known for a very long time. The constant H is *very* small 2.2*10^-18 s (you almost never see it written that way but that is what it is). So he could plug in ANY small value on the right and it would work.
Very interesting and clever (yet daring) to use quantum mechanics to explain dark areas of gravity, while a few years back gravity was clearly widely accepted and quantum was seen as behaving erratically (The irony of things sometimes!) but I love how we are stretching our possible solutions and thinking out of the box. I find it very informative and promising. I hope it leads to a better explanation of our universe. Thank you for the post.
I'm 15 minutes in and I am so happy right now. Edit: wow that was amazing. I have had similar ideas the past few years and I'm glad that this view is emerging :)
Excellent approach and very exiting how it will develop further. It brings physics closer to ancient wisdom (I personally believe that once upon a time humanity had solved these questions profoundly better and that we have very few bits of information left). I heard very similar ideas from "alternative" scientists (like Nassim Harramein) but it is good to see that now people from the high end core of science are getting there from other angles of approach.
paxwallicejazz another interpretation on entanglement and gravitons could be that the disappearance is direct evidence of nodes in wave oscillation as sympathetic pairings - that the disappearances are a zero-point (or even that point's complement) or other property of wave anatomy from wave propagation, and not an inference for extra n-dimensional planing ... just sayin'..
SuperToFue ah gee not quite as exciting as Ed Witten's idea about closed loops being able freely traverse around our multiverse. But conceded. Still the discovery of disappearing Gravitons wouldn't disprove the 11 dimensional multiverse.
One black hole is quite larger than the other one. Time stops at the horizons? Or at the singularities? The holes are pulling spacetime as they spin and as they spin around each other in the same direction or, alternately, in a different direction. Are the axis aligned or anti aligned? Semi aligned? What happens when the surface of the EH, spinning, approaches the speed of light?
I would't dare to challenge his theory but to my opinion he misuses the word information too often when referring to data. Data itself is meaningless, it needs to be interpreted to become information.
XQCmoi Wrong, information is there independent of a particular observer being able to interpret it. Think of an ancient language no human now on earth can read.
Well, there’s a big difference between “information” and human communications/media theory. Two different things, Marshall McLuhan is almost irrelevant to this conversation.
That we have human's like Verlinde in our midst, is a miracle in itself. The thirst for knowing everything reminds me why Eve eat the apple in that story. I hope we never get to the end of this quest, it's like if we were born in a fairy tale world, with all it's nightmares, none of which bother me at this moment but could at any time.
gravity is emergent, time is emergent, matter is no matter but energy, entropy is emergent, everyting is emergent. So, we need a theory that describes the emergent universe.
Time is not emergent, it is an illusion. There is only an eternal now. It is the mind that creates concepts such as past and future. There is only Now.
But if time is an illusion then the Now must be unchanging. Change requires time, if it isn't real then the mind cannot create anything since that would be a change.
Very nice Mr. Verlinde - it is just so hard so get in touch with you - because I have the quantum space/time dynamic explaining how gravity is emerging - On my side the math is missing but the explanation is complete - and it is a background independent string-theoretical explanation close to Bohm´s mechanics and it also doesn´t need any dark ingredients to explain the cosmos even not in the very beginning (filament structure)
is there a preference for which type of particle will fall into the black hole during hawking radiation? ie antimatter particle or regular matter particle?
Yes - the one that is on the wrong side of the event horizon. This is the only way it can happen. One escapes and one doesn't - the one on the wrong side of gravity.
I understand that- the particle closer to the singularity will fall in and the one on the outside of the event-horizon will escape. But the point of my question seems to have escaped you mr. Crush, is there a preference in matter or antimatter that will fall in or escape , or will it be equal , some matter and some antimatter particles ? Is there a way of detecting this?
If gravity is entangled with entanglement (excuse the pun) then it should be instantaneous i.e. faster than C; unless space/time has some form of inertia on the information exchange or reaction to the information exchange.
I remember hearing about Entropic Gravity from a grad student online (on a minecraft server) before it was famous. But is it by sure the hottest theory in cosmology because it has huge implications. Entropic Gravity explains MOND, the observation of a minimum gravitational acceleration which completely eliminates the need for Dark Matter.
It's maybe possible that the universe is NOT expanding, ('space' itself expanding), but that 'time' (being defined as the flow of energy), is slowing down giving us a relative perspective of an expanding universe. Or, maybe our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center faster and faster due to the gravitational pull on our solar system getting stronger and stronger the closer we get to the galactic center, hence we perceive a universe expanding faster and faster including a red shift of energy of galaxies away from ours. Or, maybe some are all are true? 'Space' expanding AND 'time' slowing down AND maybe our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center. Why is it that only 'space' expanding is the explanation of what is observed?
Thanks, and 'no' I am not a physicist. But I have self studied various sciences including quantum physics and advanced quantum physics. In addition, some of the drugs the government has me on to fight my cancer has had a side effect of clarifying my thoughts. I can also reasonably show how the dual slit experiment can be explained by utilizing QED and that the wave particle duality is just an illusion; and that there are probably 120 chemical elements in this universe to round off the Periodic Table of the Elements; and that what is called 'gravity' is possibly a part of what is currently recognized as the 'photon'. 'Gravity' would be the force that makes the sine wave of em expand and contract and would act 90 degrees to the em forces which would act 90 degrees to each other. And there is more too. But, going back to the above, why is it 'only' space expanding to explain what is observed? Why this matters: Modern science claims that this Earth and it's Sun will not last for literally all of future eternity. This appears to be currently true. So, species from Earth will have to get off of this Earth and out of this solar system to survive longer into the future. But now, 'if' our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center, utilizing known forces of nature too, no dark energy or dark matter needed, then we would either have to be able to move about this galaxy or more probably have to be able to leave it one day to continue to survive into the future. I currently believe that main stream modern science might be wrong about this universe expanding, but we would still have to get off of this Earth and out of this solar system and possibly have to be able to leave this galaxy too. Of course, if main stream modern science is correct about this universe expanding and that it would most probably end in a 'big freeze', then we all most probably die one day anyway. Life itself is either ultimately meaningless or it isn't. Life itself is all just an illusion that will end one day and be forgotten or it won't. "What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it actually eternally matter to?" "God" alone? and/or "Me" too? and/or "Some other entity or entities"? OR "To no eternally consciously existent entity at all"? Currently the analysis would indicate the later to be really true and that life itself is all just an illusion, an illusion that will all end one day and be forgotten. But, as I don't know what I don't know, I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But, I either am or I am not. Which is it in actual reality?
Light travels at a constant (C) so, we know via light red shifting that "slowing" of universal time is not causing spacetime expansion. Also in every direction we look out into space the other galaxies (except Andromeda, the closest galaxy to the Milky way) is traveling away from us faster and faster. I would love for this to not be true for eventual human colonization of all of the universe but, at this junction in time it seems like wormholes might be our only saving grace for universal colonization.
Ashen Shugur It is claimed that light travels at a constant (C), BUT modern science also claims that 'time' varies. "Speed" is distance divided by 'time'. If 'time' varies, then speed and/or distance would also have to vary. Basic math. "IF" our solar system were being pulled toward our galactic center, due to known forces of gravity too, no 'dark energy' and/or 'dark matter' even needed, then we would still perceive a red shifting of light from far away galaxies. And the closer and closer we get to the center of the galaxy, the stronger and stronger the gravitational pull on our solar system causing our solar system to be pulled in faster and faster, giving us a relative perspective of a universe expanding faster and faster. So, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which scenario is more probable? Our solar system being pulled toward our galactic center faster and faster utilizing known forces of nature, OR that 'space' itself is expanding and even speeding up as it does so, and things like 'dark energy' have to be created to explain the observations of which 'dark energy' has yet to be found, plus one of the foundations of science is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So, where is this 'dark energy' hiding if it can't be created? But anyway, a. What exactly is 'space' to you that it can expand? b. What exactly is 'time' to you that it can vary?
The unseen energy is a sea, the unseen matter the crest of its waves and our view of it is from an atom of the spay photoionized on it way to evaporation/dispersal?
I don't buy this theory. I hate to just eat up a new theory and gobble it down before it has enough separate and unbiased peer review. I'm a nonintelligent person, but this sounds like trying to connect two unknown things just because they're unknown. Also, using information as a variable in an equation is a little too anthropomorphic to me...and he tries to use weaknesses in current theory as proof for his own. Is anyone else skeptical? How does what a black hole look like matter to this theory?
It is my friend. Look up quantum gravity. It is making far better progress then weve made with any other understanding since general relativity. In fact, vetter yet, look up " are we living in a simulation" an watch the video of a quantum gravity research
John Morris, couldn't agree more. I am no expert so I cannot express an informed opinion but I gather that the majority of physicists aren't buying this theory so Dr. Verlinde should first convince his colleagues then I would take him seriously.
This theory does not deny Einstein's theory. In fact, you can esily deduce Newton and Einstein's laws from it. It is extending it. The difference is in very large scales. Rotation of galaxies we observe is faster than it should be according to Einstein's and Newton equations. So physicist introduced "Dark matter" to comply with the equations and now everyone is looking for that matter (particles), in CERN for example. However, with Emergent gravity theory you do not need any such "new" dark matter. This theory predicts the motion of galaxies exactly as we see it right now (calculated in 2017 for some galaxy). And this is the main contradiction to Einsteins theory, which is not good at very large scales. Again, from Emergent gravity you can very easily deduce both Newton and Einstein laws, so this is more general theory. I am looking forward to new predictions with this theory.
Look up "information theory" and its relationship to entropy. That part of his presentation is not a new idea, it's been around since WW2 (Shannon) and is not seriously disputed by anyone. In the mathematical sense, Information and entropy are basically synonyms for the same thing, there's nothing anthropomorphic about it, it's just maths.
He didn’t explain his theory and just showed some equations. I spent an hour watching this just to see him explain how gravity emerges and the relationship to information theory and how his theory explains dark matter. His talk was a few disconnected and incomplete islands. Smh -.- He should watch some Feynman
Yes, he is not very good in presentation. I was lucky and saw very good physicist presenting core of this theory. I love it since then. The best part is correct prediction of galaxy motion (rotation) which does not need Dark matter.
I can't help thinking there's something to this theory, but I wish he'd explained it a little better. Dark matter and dark energy have always been placeholders until we figure out what's happening. No one declared they are the final answer, just that there is some unexplained variable. I have a feeling that very soon this will all click. The data from the LHC seems to be refuting a lot of the more exotic particles from supersymmetry (if I understand correctly), which tells me there might be a simpler explanation that doesn't require a lot of exotic details. This has that simple elegance, if I understand him right. I don't know if I did understand him though because his talk was 95% review and 5% "new view of gravity," which was the bit I wanted to learn about. He kinda says "trust me, I did the math." That's not very satisfying to a scientist.
Remsey, from what I have understood of other lectures, the information density is defined by Planck space and time. Each Planck cube can only hold one quantum state over one Planck time, and it is the quantum states at that level that define the maximum information in a given quantity of spacetime. That information changes, but the total amount of information is not gained or lost because every Planck speck in spacetime always has one quantum state, even if that state is zero. So are you saying that, as a galaxy rotates, that the massive change of this already-existing information is what causes gravity? When you put a max of 2 GB on a memory stick, you're not adding anything. You're only flipping zeroes to ones, or in theory vice versa. But the total amount of digits of information (analogous to Planck cubes in a given volume) remains constant. Can you cram more information into a given chunk of spacetime without shrinking the size of Planck cubes?
You should watch his earlier videos when he did an interview. He said he likes to keep his finding a secret. I think he is keeping his cards close to his chest and said all these for the sake of this talk. The other thing is, I know what he is talking about but since his theory is new it is difficult for him to know what people don't know. When someone knows a lot about something he thinks other know what he is talking about so when they summarise it, it gets lost. He gave a long intro to show how our understanding of gravity has changes based on the technology and data we had at the time. Now he is saying the universe in a larger scale has more clue on how gravity works. It is like trying to understand weather by measuring the temperature and behaviour of one bucket of water in 10 min. We are measuring the gravity in a very isolated manner. We can see that studying the new data within the last 20 years has show so many anomalies such as dark energy and dark mater, black holes etc. So he is trying to explain all that in terms one one theory rather than adding makeshift theories that has not been verified at all. The best way to watch this kind of videos is to listen to him and try to see it his way, not to see how it fits into your model which is obviously wrong and it does not explain many things. I like to ask if you are Iranian (from your name) ? If so please contact me as I have a interesting theory that you may be interested in too.
Question... if a black hole fell into another black hole... which nothing? Can escape from... does that also include gravity from the smaller black hole? ... everything except.. what? Bosons? Or gravity waves cancelling each other out... how does that work...
Perhaps because gravity is per definition how space-time filled with matter looks like. In that sense gravity does not travel in space but is a property of space itself. Gravity is how space-time looks like, i.e. the "look" is what we call gravity. If that was not the case, then gravity would not exist to start with. If you change the matter content or distribution you change the look. It is that change in look which cannot travel faster than the speed of light. That look is not affected by gravity but the energy/matter distribution. The look _is_ the gravity and is determined by the energy/matter distribution - not gravity. I.e. gravity is not a cause but a consequence and therefore it is not affect by itself.
A good question. I have thought about it and cannot find any answer except that nothing except hawking radiation comes out of a black hole. So the gravity only exists outside the horizon. This contradicts the idea that you can fall through the horizon and notice nothing. Also if a black hole can have a spin, how would we know it had a spin if nothing comes out of it?
*Coastwalker -* when a black hole has angular momentum, it changes the shape of the event horizon and creates an ergosphere around it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
+Nam Mam Hi this makes sense to me. My current understanding of Einstien's field equations is that they are the laws of conservation (of mass, energy, momentum and the like). The difference with Newton's laws is that the equations are equally valid for any observer, no matter where they are or how fast they are going. I expect the black hole keeps it's gravity well in the same way a gyroscope stays upright.
I have been functionally blind without glasses my entire life. If I hold my finger a few inches from my face without glasses there is an area of focus past my finger. Does gravity come into play with this phenomenon? It works in essence the same way gravitational lensing in effect.
Thanks for your reply Joseph, my comment was actually a bit of a nerdy joke directed at the original poster, Albert Einstein who said 'Everybody needs Albert Einstein in their subscriptions.' and had nothing at all to do with the real Einstein's work. I don't know why you think I belong to a cult, I would need that explained. It would also be nice if you could talk about where Einstein predicted 'celestial bodies doing odd shit during a total eclipse' because that is not any part of any theory of gravity that I am aware of.
He said that spacetime is so stiff. I find it amazing that we can still occupy a region in spacetime, a thing we cannot do occupying the space occupied by a massive material object.
Yep - whenever I come across someone who says they have a groundbreaking new idea and can't get to the point within 5 minutes I start to smell a rat...
I have problems with some of the explanations in this talk - he says that light travels in a curved line which is incorrect. Light travels in a straight line, it is space-time that is curved. It's a really important distinction to understand and even for novices like myself it's really important not to refer to light as being curved.
It used to be the case that an idea in theoretical physics was only publicized after the math had been pretty much worked out. That no longer seems to be the case. Dr. Verlinde's lecture is speculation, very intelligent and educated speculation, but still just that.
Russell K. Bonney That guy is a crank. You might as well provide a link to a copy of The Bible. Please leave religion out of physics. It really has no place here.
I'm no physicist but I never liked the dark matter idea. I've been wondering if anyone was working on a theory like this. Glad I stumbled upon this video.
Dark matter is just a placeholder for an observed phenomenon until we figure out how to extend our theories. The Janus Model of the Cosmos (ruclips.net/video/YkuWTnjuJ68/видео.html) looks like a reasonable step in that direction.
this theory fails to explain a litany of other observable phenomena that wimp dark matter does explain perfectly well, so no, you and your cadre of clueless armchair physicists (read: cranks) didn't "know" anything.
His observation that the deviation between expected and measured velocities of gravitational rotation occur at the Hubble Constant is interesting and definitely a clue to the underlying mechanism. But his assertion that this is a consequence of quantum entanglement was not elucidated at all in the lecture; furthermore most particles aren't entangled, so proposing that the gravitational force arises from entanglement seems somewhat odd. Information theory is currently the hot trend in physics but it's presently unclear whether or not this will actually turn out to be helpful. Each generation of physicists tends to elaborate on current technologies (steam = kinetics, electricity = wave functions, computing = information theory) but many times the elaborations turn out to be dead-ends because analogies are often misleading. We shall see what develops over the coming decades.
If he's right, then it is a fatalistic view of our future. I black hole is a sphere so even a singularity cannot be flat, so wouldn't we continue on forever in an inverse position?
No explanation of Bullet cluster dark matter decoupling observations, no explanation of the CMB anisotropy acoustic / frequency spectrum, no explanation of supernovae distance observations, all of which point to dark matter actually being real. Just another mond-y flavor of the week. lame
appeal to authority much? Einstein thought QM couldn't be right because "god doesn't play dice", he was wrong. Reputability is no guarantee of correctness.
And yet everyone who wants to take a look at relativity and it's problems is treated like a crackpot. I mean of course it's a very successful theory but it obviously has holes, yet everyone keeps shooting down people that try looking at things differently. So it seems reputability does function as a guarantee of correctness for a lot of people.
I like the concept, but I am not sure it will all work out. Why do some galaxies have a larger fraction of their mass in dark matter compared to other galaxies of similar mass?
Ye gods, this guy is hard work to follow. I lasted 15 minutes of his robotic, morse code delivery and moved on to something easier on the ear.... He is no Feinman.....
Actually, I thought he explained it rather well. Try watching some related videos of PBS Space-Time (Black Holes, Dark Matter, etc) and then re-visiting this. Perhaps some ancillary information will help.
Good theory.. can't this be tested by observations of stars around a stellar black hole? Even though they are not as big as SMBH, shouldn't it exhibit similar behavior to a lesser extent?
Brian Cox and Richard Feynman both explained the concepts of gravity and entropy as well as temperature in their own lectures and documentaries in both a beautiful and insightful manner
So a body matter may gravitate to itself, or to its own position in the past, to be more specific, if it moves relatively fast or far enough? In that case, we won't need an additional mass. Instead, we will need to count the same mass we have multiple times, or am I getting it wrong?
1) You assume that Newton's law is proportional to the area , but (1/r^2) also means curvature. 2) Are we all (as a matter created from space at black hole horizon) entangled with black hole?
43:00 virtual particle pairs can recombine or the can recombine with a virtual particle next to them. That causes a motion. That motion is energy. Slightly space time bends. Slightly more virtual particles are moved to this region whill there oposit pair goes out. That is how gravity works. Now we got so much positive particles stacked on that side that we might as well call it matter. That is one way of describing it.
Erik is one of the few top physicists who dears to take a contrarian or at least novel perspective of things. Wish there could be more. He understands that before even considering ''Dark Energy' as a fix for gravity, we should first understand what gravity is all about and how it operates. He is actually very close to the solution: Gravity is the emergent off-setting effect of SPEED of (and within!!) Mass. The essential part he missed (as did even Einstein) is that gravity is fundamentally a LONGITUDINAL spacetime contraction opposite to the vector of speed. At high speeds of macro objects this becomes noticeable ( Einstein's covers this in his special relativity 'length contraction' but fails to relate it to spacetime contraction) . Within restmass we have an identical longitudinal ST contraction process going on since each atom has high spinning sub atomic particles. It is only because all these atoms are utterly unaligned that their collective ST contraction (which we traditionally call 'Gravity') APPEARS to work radially (this is Einsteins' GR). So now we see what makes stars at the outer spiral arms stay in their position; their speed induced EXTRA macro gravity (with a gradient!) binds them together. Given their different speed vectors, approximations like in MOND are allowed. Problem solved!
@Dan Solomon Sure. Wall is correct in so far that he understands that at the subatomic scales (sub Planck scale), energy forms the grid, not space. As such we live in a dual continuum. It can be derived that inside our galaxy it is indeed again this 'energy' based continuum that dominates outside the border of our wider solar system. As such our galaxy would unfortunately be a singularity, embedded in the wider ST dominated continuum of our observable universe. Wall however makes the mistake in that he only promotes one side of the coin, namely his 'electric' (or 'energymass') continuum. Mainstream however is also correct in upholding their spacetime continuum and Einsteins GR. Wall makes a complete fool out of himself to attack this very well documented and equally valid mainstream supported setup. The answer lies in the combination both. Inside our solar system the ST setup dominates. Duality is the hardest thing for humans to see, but it forms the root of physics from the subatomic to the widest universe scale. In a more comprised form, it is the same answer that also explains particle-wave duality.
@Dan Solomon Hi Dan. It's a long story. When the goal is to eliminate every physical paradox we know via reversed engineering principles, the most symmetric and simplistic (and therefor likely) outcome is that there must be duality at the root of physics. Meaning there is duality between the four functions of a continuum (Grid Clock, Potential, Inertia) and the four core ,measures (Space, Time, Energy, Mass). At the sub atomic scale energy and space switch functions as do time and mass. This dual setting basically explains any and all issues we have in physics. The consequence is that we would have a spacetime (=ST short) dominated observable universe, which allows for singularities (Galaxies) dominated by the alternative continuum setup (Energy Mass). Inside this energymass (EM) continuum (our galaxy) there would again be energymass singularities which would be ruled by the ST continuum (our wider solar system). And inside this ST continuum you again have micro ST singularities (atoms) which are ruled by the ME continuum, which again have ST singularities at their core (neutrons, protons) etc etc. So you basically have the same pattern alternating again and again. The problem mainstream has, is they only look at physics form one setup (the ST setup). The problem Wall has is that he only looks at physics form the alternative continuum (EM continuum). Once you combine them into an orthogonal dual system, we all can go home and drink a beer....
Verlinder seems to say that energy/matter can be simplified to photon information. That's probably true but what about the coordinate system, i.e. space-time, isn't that also the other part of the information that makes up our universe? That does not seem to be enclosed in the photonic qbits, or is it?
I understood it the other way: that all the info is in photons (quanta) and that gravity (does that include space-time, per Einstein?) is an emergent property. Space-time is quantized or "pixelated" per the Plank length and time but how does *h* encode info?
I wish i understood this theory, it;s very interesting. Is the view here that entanglement, and entropy are contributers to gravity? I am not sure i understand how gravity could be an emergent property based on entropy or entanglement, its hard to form a conceptual picture of how it could work. Does anyone have an idea?
Interesting but I just have a question: Do we not first need to find out if gravity is just a surface phenomenon, "emerging" from external forces acting on the surface of a large object? Drop tower tests cannot really confirm/discern because they operate within the Earths' gravity field at the surface. We need to test what precisely the surface does, what its role is, and how it influences measured values. The test for this is to inflate two balloons in space and measuring gravity around them with sensitive gravimeters and move them outside of the Earth's gravity well (for as much as possible). If Newton's law holds up, and this gravity hypothesis holds, then the mere fact of one balloon being larger than the other will result in a difference in measured gravity at the surface. The relation between m and G in Netwon's gravity formula's might be masking a different phenomenon. It would also explain why A or Area plays a role in more recent formula's. For added rigidity: make sure that the larger balloon has the same mass as the smaller balloon and both are made from the same elements and both are evacuated after their inflation (some type of UV rigidizing material). Depending on the sensitivity of your detector, this is an experiment that would not cost a lot of money. Maybe it can even be performed with inflatable cubesats and then it would only cost you a couple of hundreds of thousands of Euro's. You can assume that existing theories would invalidate the merit of even performing this experiment, but the experiment hasn't been performed outside of Earth's gravity well. (The hammer and feather on the moon are a different type of experiment. Composition could play a role, that is why I prefer using only the same materials). If nothing happens you've lost a million Euro's. If a difference is measured, all of the sudden you can create artificial gravity at will and learn something fundamental about the world and gravity empirically for a minuscule fraction of the cost of a LISA gravity detector. And you have centuries of Data to fill in the emerging picture. Maybe the relation between mass and G is different than what is known today. Push gravity theories, another alternative, do explain why we see the observed speeds at the center and edge of the galaxy, so maybe one should not disregard them as a possibility.
A common misconception: the gravity field is not embebed in the space-time fabric. The Gravity Field IS Newton’s space + time. At the end all there exists are co-variant fields.
WE KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT! NASA LIES !! NASA STANDS FOR NOT ALWAYS TELLING TRUTHS.. NO REAL SCIENTIST WILL TELL YOU GRAVITY IS UNDERSTOOD. !! WE FLAT EARTHERS HAVE 100% PROOF OF FLAT EARTH. WE HAVE MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING !!
Hybrid Vre there is no bottom. A black hole is a misnomer. Hole in the sense that light can go in but not reflect out. Think of it as a giant magnet that binds everything that it attracts with no possibility of escape. Matter is simply crushed to the densest possible point once it crosses the gravitational horizon and is pulled to the center. It is added to the mass and increases the gravitational pull. Like space quicksand.
Having read the ideas related to black holes and how many people just repeat what they have read is not impressive. The idea that the Universe expands makes sense. The idea that black holes collect and vent makes sense from some points of view and nonsense from other viewpoints. Due to the fact that we are looking at the Universe from our point of view and ours only does not make our viewpoint the only view
They say that light or photon is a radiation.. Inside a blackhole they say light cant escape..And now they say blackhole emit radiation.. how this radiation escape?
Larry Furigay Look up “Hawking Radiation.” Basically, it’s a quantum mechanical effect - virtual particle pairs are always appearing at the quantum scale, and then disappear almost instantaneously. In the presence of the extremely strong gravitational field near the event horizon of a black hole, sometimes one of the particles in these virtual particle pairs falls into the black hole, but the other escapes and becomes a real particle. But, in order for the books to balance, so to speak - in other words, in order for conservation of energy to hold - the mass of the escaping particle has to come from somewhere. And it comes from the black hole, because the part of the particle pair which falls into the black hole has negative energy. So, the term “black hole” is something of a misnomer - all black holes radiate, but the stellar and supermassive black holes do so almost incomprehensibly slowly, with lifetimes exceeding the current age of the universe by many orders of magnitude (indeed, all naturally occurring black holes are actually growing on net, because their temperature is far lower than the CMB, so they’re slowly growing even if there’s no matter feeding them). However, the smallest black holes that could be artificially produced using concentrated x-ray lasers would actually glow incredibly brightly; indeed, they would be an ideal power source in many cases, capable of converting mass into energy far more efficiently than even the most efficient forms of nuclear fusion, and with similar efficiency to matter-antimatter annihilation. A black hole with a mass of about a gigaton would be an excellent power source - especially if you could “feed” it and maintain a stable mass, although that’s difficult because the BH would be extremely tiny and putting off huge amounts of gamma radiation, rather like attempting to stuff a boulder down a fire hose at full blast - particularly for interstellar spacecraft.
Mass in kilograms = Charge in Coulombs squared x 10 to the power minus 7 divided by distance between two charges in meters. Thus, gravity = electromagnetism = weak interaction = strong interaction. There is no 4 separate, distinct interactions, but only one, which to conform with popular expectation, we can name "quantum gravity".
Things farther away are moving away faster because of how much in the past they are, keeping in mind that expanded time is not a valid measure of historical time.
I did not understand what he answered about question related to Bullet cluster. Maybe due to lack of understabding it seems to me that he avoided to answer the question. In fact the Bullet cluster is really heavy argument for dark matter.
At the interface of event horizon, pulling matter and pushing antimatter reminded me Greenglow documentary and the theory of Dr Dragan Hajdukovic that antimatter creates antigravity
Erick, you'll know the real true nature of gravity when I publish my theory of the real true nature of gravity soon, a result of my 30-year fundamental research on gravity in Singapore.
![The Dark Matter Mystery [4K]](/img/1.gif)
I am reminded that since, in cosmological time, we've only been observing the universe from the perspective of a single point for a fraction of a moment in time as we understand it, we really know almost nothing at all and all of our theories of existence are tentative.
At our present state of evolution, we can never hope to reach an understanding of the thing, but perhaps this is a case where the journey is more important than the destination.
Dr. Verlinde has given me a glimpse of that journey. Thinking back on what I have just viewed has given me goose bumps! Thank you for the ride.
John If you are interested in looking at this concept of a universe constructed on information, you might enjoy this interview reflecting on universal truths gained through art and life experience but coming to the very same conclusion. ruclips.net/video/HlMgGkwWUNY/видео.html
I'm thankful for an internet that lets us in the hinterlands watch brilliant people expound on new ideas.
Great out of the box thinking. If confirmed, being able to knock a fundamental force from the standard model would be more of an achievement than just a nobel prize!
What I like about Verlinde, is that he is a Dutch scientist, doing a very good job. Do check Lewin and Dijkgraaf, working for famous American universities. Those two love explaining things.
If he would cause a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, more people would benefit NOW. Implications for the future could be interesting. Burning Texas oil is not the way we all should get energy. Burning is wasting material. Gone. Only some gasses left. Hope this new science finds CLEAN energy from atom cores. Without your old age persons all dying from cancer. Ever noticed THEY DO?!
Thanks Dr Verlinde and Perimeter Institute. I truly hope Dr. Verlinde is right and solves gravity. Hope he wins the Nobel prize.
Erik Verlinde casually roasting Dark Matter for an hour. Love it XD
Thats really a good observation on ur oart..bad for him roasting a theory thats invisible but there. Kinda like consciousness he def a materialist.
Yes
Lies again? Soccer Club
starts at 2:54 if you wanna skip the intro
Skroot dam i clicked ur link and it brought me back a few seconds...
Took me more than three minutes to arrive at your comment.
i wanna skip the full talk
@@r7diego go to 109:15
I love these lectures. Thank you, Pi!
Excellent introduction to the field leading up to the new idea that is described at 42 minutes. I find it perplexing that the Stanford crowd have not visibly discussed Eric Verlinde's concept. They are after all keenly interested in the collision of information theory and black hole horizons. Of course there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that dark matter exists, the keystone of which is that simulations of the evolution of the distribution of matter in the universe works with dark matter. Eric seems well justified in persuing the concept currently.
I am not a physicist. But I think I can follow some of the key ideas. Good talk. I like the new view of how matters in our cosmos may interact through information.
it might be information :)
You didn't understand what Hongyuan Li said. he said How it interacts through information.
I hope is not too late to share a comment about this wonderful lecture.
I am fascinated with Dr Erik Verlinde and his view on how many scientists for many years have been 'orbiting' around Newton's law of GRAVITY without realizing that something was missing and another approach was needed in order to solve the Big Questions.
If my intuition is right, Dr Verlinde might have come across a work from an amateur that challenged the idea of Impact craters in 2006 at the 1st International Conference of Impact Craters organized by ESA in Holland. It was my work. Large Scale Gas Bubbles Bursting Mechanism Vs Impact Craters. I was confident to question to everyone in that conference what Verlinde said about the scientist jumping to conclusions without knowing much of what things are made of. I questioned how gravity was wrongly seen and calculated to justify perpendicular impacts from a meteor or asteroid. I questioned how a scientist can calculate the gravity of a distant planet if they don't know how many gas bubbles are trapped inside its body? That clearly affects density, therefore the mass and the whole calculation of gravity. Right? haha, Later Prof Brian Cox explained in a documentary that actually the gravity in other distant planets could be estimated by their capacity to hold an atmosphere.
Also liked that Dr Verlinde opposes the idea of the Big Bang. I support him 100%
If I was right with the gas bubble bursting on the surface of planets as the mechanism that shaped craters, then those planets were droplets of fluid matter that must have come from a high energy event and were experiencing basic principles of Thermodynamics.
Inevitably, This thought led me to rethink the Big Bang too. I called it the Big Sneeze. ; )
I am not a physicist and not a theorist, but have always been inspired by Richard Feynman lectures and interviews.
It was very reassuring to hear Dr Verlinde views on Gravity, Thermodynamics and black holes. I don't feel like a fish out of the water anymore.
Thank you for such amazing lecture.
Well, that was disappointing. An hour spent introducing the underlying concepts then.. nothing. End of discussion. I'm sure I'm not alone in already having a good grasp of all the underlying concepts before watching this. What I was hoping for was some elucidation of this new theory. I wanted to get to the meat. Sadly we are left none the wiser for watching this.
Absolutely. It was boring. I would have liked details about the qbit behaviour and so on instead of well known phenomenons.
Laughable dark BS made by leaches to society. The Electric Universe explains clearly.
back to skool for you.... lol...you missed the clues..
He knew more than he let on
@nagualdesign. Perhaps this expands things a bit here
ruclips.net/video/ZCyYGWqCmFw/видео.html
He puts forward a clear explanation of the way he understands things.
Much more plausible than "hey, there's stuff we can't see or measure or even prove that it's there."
That's not how science works...
@asdf More like Hypothesis
Existance of dark matter was proven gravitational but the enigma is how they were formed.
I'm pretty sure this will be mainstream science in about ten years. It passes the simplicity and "beauty" test and just seems intuitively right.
You really think it passes the simplicity test? This talk wasn't bad but his original 51 page paper is a beast!!
@@user-lb8qx8yl8khe concept is simple. Gravity is the deformation of space time like in any slope it goes up one way and goes down the other and actually does not move. Add a dimension it expands and contracts depending in where you look and does not move at all.
At quantum level the space is flat and empty but particle and anti particle pop in and out.
A funny way of seeing that is an infinit row of chair and on it is an infinit football team. That is empty space. Is there room for one more player
Yes. Player one gets up and moves to seat of number 2 who gets up and move to ...
That is a gravitational wave.
It works like an edge dislocation in a metal that is bent. Matter is shards of space time.
Now make the row move one way and the team an other, that is gravity and space time bending.
An other way of looking at it is : pull on a stocking, that ilustate a black hole.
Now if you take the fabric where you pinch as your frame of reference, it appears that a dark energy is pushing the fabric away from you. 😅
It means that who is wearing the stocking is pulling there way.
Seeing the size difference between dark energy and our univers i would say we are pulling on the stocking of our mother 😂
And every black hole is our children universe.😮
I think that is what he is saying but he dies not want to say.
Because today is the leading edge of the universe ❤... eternaly.
So yes. It is pretty static and dynamic all at once.
Dark matter never seemed to be a plausable explanation for galaxy rotation curves. The anamalous gravitational changes always happen at the same distance from the galactic center. That would mean that Dark Matter would have to be distributed in a very specific way each and every time. Verlinde's theory does away with this ad hoc methodology and replaces it with what so far has had some empirically verified mathematics. Can you say "future Nobel winner"? I hope he's right!
lol alright
Mixing elasticity, entanglement, qubits, produced Verlinde's emergent gravity theory. What remains is to merge 3-d information on 2-d surface, which he claims to be an assumption.
Mike Petersen: Agree completely. I never completely bought into the Dark Matter / Dark Energy theory. Always seemed like a lame fudge factor to make the equations work.
Well, neither the theory of dark matter or dark energy says exactly what it is, so no sane person "buys it" completely.
Erik Nilsson You're right. Every morning I grab a dark coffee but I rarely consume it completely.
A very interesting conclusion/conjecture, quite a bit to digest from a single lecture, will need to study more, thankyou for something profound to 🤔
a bit
Fascinating. Thank you for provoking, or promoting thought.
A very interesting idea. Thank you Dr. Verlinde!
David : I agree ;he has ignited my interest in qubits
I attended the lecture and found it thought-provoking. Like many people today, the speaker (Erik Verlinde) is bothered about the band-aid invention of DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY ("how can we claim that 95% of the universe is missing with no experimental evidence"). He alluded to the fact that these DARK topics are similar to the previous century's PLANET VULCAN (postulated to explain the strange orbit of Mercury before Einstein's General Theory of Relativity)
Dark Matter and Dark Energy were not "invented", they are an intricate derivative of currently known cosmology.
The universe does not conform to our views on how it should be, the best evidence still predicts dark matter and dark energy.
Nobody believed Einstein for years, yet he has been 100% correct on every count of relativity, every prediction made has been confirmed and no other model currently exists that comes even close to challenging this. Any new model would need to still be as accurate as his but also go drastically further, without "inventing" new physics or observations.
Nicholas Bolding. Where do you get your information from, that can be condensed into your above comment? There are numerous volumes of scientific papers, from every camp, that are contrary to what you have stated. I'm still undecided. Once one ventures into Quantum Field, it seems to come undone. Doesn't really matter which way I look; out or in, I end up dizzy anyway.
Bullet cluster: astrobites.org/2016/11/04/the-bullet-cluster-a-smoking-gun-for-dark-matter/
Convincing evidence of dark matter
Dark Matter has never been observed, only inferred like epicycles. In fact, both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are identical to epicycles, constructed so we don't have to admit that our formulas for gravity are wrong.
Actually, they are actually much more similar to the "Phlogiston" theory which plagued science and chemistry for hundreds of years...
I totally agree with you Dr. Verlinde about your uneasy feeling of how gravity has been described. I have felt that my whole life. I also feel like you are on the very much the right tract. Please keep up the brilliant research. It would be the most impactful science in history to achieve a correct theory of gravity.
I agree thank you
I want to point out that his claim that the deviation occurs at a "very specific point" is a lie. The deviation occurs at the point where the mass drops off. This has been known for a very long time. The constant H is *very* small 2.2*10^-18 s (you almost never see it written that way but that is what it is). So he could plug in ANY small value on the right and it would work.
Very interesting and clever (yet daring) to use quantum mechanics to explain dark areas of gravity, while a few years back gravity was clearly widely accepted and quantum was seen as behaving erratically (The irony of things sometimes!) but I love how we are stretching our possible solutions and thinking out of the box. I find it very informative and promising. I hope it leads to a better explanation of our universe. Thank you for the post.
I'm 15 minutes in and I am so happy right now.
Edit: wow that was amazing. I have had similar ideas the past few years and I'm glad that this view is emerging :)
Well it is taking it's sweet time.
Excellent approach and very exiting how it will develop further. It brings physics closer to ancient wisdom (I personally believe that once upon a time humanity had solved these questions profoundly better and that we have very few bits of information left). I heard very similar ideas from "alternative" scientists (like Nassim Harramein) but it is good to see that now people from the high end core of science are getting there from other angles of approach.
You got that right Sir. Each person is rediscovering the univers all over again. If that is not reincarnation.😅
Entanglement looks very different from higher dimensions doesn't it?
No, to me it doesn't. Entanglement may be direct evidence of extra dimensions.
Klaus Kerl
.. interpretation is still only subjectivity ..
Klaus Kerl dude what do you think I am saying. That's why the question about disappearing gravitons whose discovery would support string theory.
paxwallicejazz
another interpretation on entanglement and gravitons could be that the disappearance is direct evidence of nodes in wave oscillation as sympathetic pairings - that the disappearances are a zero-point (or even that point's complement) or other property of wave anatomy from wave propagation, and not an inference for extra n-dimensional planing ... just sayin'..
SuperToFue ah gee not quite as exciting as Ed Witten's idea about closed loops being able freely traverse around our multiverse. But conceded. Still the discovery of disappearing Gravitons wouldn't disprove the 11 dimensional multiverse.
One black hole is quite larger than the other one. Time stops at the horizons? Or at the singularities? The holes are pulling spacetime as they spin and as they spin around each other in the same direction or, alternately, in a different direction. Are the axis aligned or anti aligned? Semi aligned? What happens when the surface of the EH, spinning, approaches the speed of light?
I would't dare to challenge his theory but to my opinion he misuses the word information too often when referring to data. Data itself is meaningless, it needs to be interpreted to become information.
XQCmoi Wrong, information is there independent of a particular observer being able to interpret it. Think of an ancient language no human now on earth can read.
Well, there’s a big difference between “information” and human communications/media theory. Two different things, Marshall McLuhan is almost irrelevant to this conversation.
That we have human's like Verlinde in our midst, is a miracle in itself. The thirst for knowing everything reminds me why Eve eat the apple in that story. I hope we never get to the end of this quest, it's like if we were born in a fairy tale world, with all it's nightmares, none of which bother me at this moment but could at any time.
gravity is emergent, time is emergent, matter is no matter but energy, entropy is emergent, everyting is emergent. So, we need a theory that describes the emergent universe.
Ronald, be patient, I'm working on it. Emergent consciousness is the next hurdle.
True, Universal Conscious is probably the link that binds it all together. The science appears to be heading in that direction.
Time is not emergent, it is an illusion.
There is only an eternal now.
It is the mind that creates concepts such as past and future.
There is only Now.
But if time is an illusion then the Now must be unchanging. Change requires time, if it isn't real then the mind cannot create anything since that would be a change.
Well said!!!
Very nice Mr. Verlinde - it is just so hard so get in touch with you - because I have the quantum space/time dynamic explaining how gravity is emerging - On my side the math is missing but the explanation is complete - and it is a background independent string-theoretical explanation close to Bohm´s mechanics and it also doesn´t need any dark ingredients to explain the cosmos even not in the very beginning (filament structure)
Gravity just refuses to cooperate, however hopefully one day it will fall in line with our preconceived theories.
gravity is a form of electrostatic force all fundamental forces are electrostatic force
It better, or we'll take it out. Boom! Boom!
Where the fuck was the new view of anything. I still have no idea what this guys theory is, and this about the 10th video of this bloke I've watched.
Dr. Verlinde is smart
is there a preference for which type of particle will fall into the black hole during hawking radiation? ie antimatter particle or regular matter particle?
Yes - the one that is on the wrong side of the event horizon. This is the only way it can happen. One escapes and one doesn't - the one on the wrong side of gravity.
I understand that- the particle closer to the singularity will fall in and the one on the outside of the event-horizon will escape. But the point of my question seems to have escaped you mr. Crush, is there a preference in matter or antimatter that will fall in or escape , or will it be equal , some matter and some antimatter particles ? Is there a way of detecting this?
If gravity is entangled with entanglement (excuse the pun) then it should be instantaneous i.e. faster than C; unless space/time has some form of inertia on the information exchange or reaction to the information exchange.
Damo for goodness sake, is it possible you give a brief view to the physics of the last 100 years before belching non sense?
I remember hearing about Entropic Gravity from a grad student online (on a minecraft server) before it was famous. But is it by sure the hottest theory in cosmology because it has huge implications. Entropic Gravity explains MOND, the observation of a minimum gravitational acceleration which completely eliminates the need for Dark Matter.
It's maybe possible that the universe is NOT expanding, ('space' itself expanding), but that 'time' (being defined as the flow of energy), is slowing down giving us a relative perspective of an expanding universe.
Or, maybe our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center faster and faster due to the gravitational pull on our solar system getting stronger and stronger the closer we get to the galactic center, hence we perceive a universe expanding faster and faster including a red shift of energy of galaxies away from ours.
Or, maybe some are all are true? 'Space' expanding AND 'time' slowing down AND maybe our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center.
Why is it that only 'space' expanding is the explanation of what is observed?
Charles Brightman Wow, those are some very thought provoking speculations I had not seen before. Are you a physicist Charles?
Thanks, and 'no' I am not a physicist. But I have self studied various sciences including quantum physics and advanced quantum physics.
In addition, some of the drugs the government has me on to fight my cancer has had a side effect of clarifying my thoughts.
I can also reasonably show how the dual slit experiment can be explained by utilizing QED and that the wave particle duality is just an illusion; and that there are probably 120 chemical elements in this universe to round off the Periodic Table of the Elements; and that what is called 'gravity' is possibly a part of what is currently recognized as the 'photon'. 'Gravity' would be the force that makes the sine wave of em expand and contract and would act 90 degrees to the em forces which would act 90 degrees to each other. And there is more too.
But, going back to the above, why is it 'only' space expanding to explain what is observed?
Why this matters:
Modern science claims that this Earth and it's Sun will not last for literally all of future eternity. This appears to be currently true. So, species from Earth will have to get off of this Earth and out of this solar system to survive longer into the future.
But now, 'if' our solar system is being pulled toward our galactic center, utilizing known forces of nature too, no dark energy or dark matter needed, then we would either have to be able to move about this galaxy or more probably have to be able to leave it one day to continue to survive into the future.
I currently believe that main stream modern science might be wrong about this universe expanding, but we would still have to get off of this Earth and out of this solar system and possibly have to be able to leave this galaxy too. Of course, if main stream modern science is correct about this universe expanding and that it would most probably end in a 'big freeze', then we all most probably die one day anyway.
Life itself is either ultimately meaningless or it isn't. Life itself is all just an illusion that will end one day and be forgotten or it won't.
"What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it actually eternally matter to?"
"God" alone? and/or "Me" too? and/or "Some other entity or entities"?
OR
"To no eternally consciously existent entity at all"?
Currently the analysis would indicate the later to be really true and that life itself is all just an illusion, an illusion that will all end one day and be forgotten. But, as I don't know what I don't know, I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. But, I either am or I am not. Which is it in actual reality?
Light travels at a constant (C) so, we know via light red shifting that "slowing" of universal time is not causing spacetime expansion. Also in every direction we look out into space the other galaxies (except Andromeda, the closest galaxy to the Milky way) is traveling away from us faster and faster. I would love for this to not be true for eventual human colonization of all of the universe but, at this junction in time it seems like wormholes might be our only saving grace for universal colonization.
Ashen Shugur
It is claimed that light travels at a constant (C), BUT modern science also claims that 'time' varies.
"Speed" is distance divided by 'time'. If 'time' varies, then speed and/or distance would also have to vary. Basic math.
"IF" our solar system were being pulled toward our galactic center, due to known forces of gravity too, no 'dark energy' and/or 'dark matter' even needed, then we would still perceive a red shifting of light from far away galaxies. And the closer and closer we get to the center of the galaxy, the stronger and stronger the gravitational pull on our solar system causing our solar system to be pulled in faster and faster, giving us a relative perspective of a universe expanding faster and faster.
So, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which scenario is more probable? Our solar system being pulled toward our galactic center faster and faster utilizing known forces of nature, OR that 'space' itself is expanding and even speeding up as it does so, and things like 'dark energy' have to be created to explain the observations of which 'dark energy' has yet to be found, plus one of the foundations of science is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So, where is this 'dark energy' hiding if it can't be created?
But anyway,
a. What exactly is 'space' to you that it can expand?
b. What exactly is 'time' to you that it can vary?
Charles Brightman: Good one. I agree.
The unseen energy is a sea, the unseen matter the crest of its waves and our view of it is from an atom of the spay photoionized on it way to evaporation/dispersal?
I don't buy this theory. I hate to just eat up a new theory and gobble it down before it has enough separate and unbiased peer review. I'm a nonintelligent person, but this sounds like trying to connect two unknown things just because they're unknown. Also, using information as a variable in an equation is a little too anthropomorphic to me...and he tries to use weaknesses in current theory as proof for his own. Is anyone else skeptical? How does what a black hole look like matter to this theory?
It is my friend. Look up quantum gravity. It is making far better progress then weve made with any other understanding since general relativity. In fact, vetter yet, look up " are we living in a simulation" an watch the video of a quantum gravity research
John Morris, couldn't agree more.
I am no expert so I cannot express an informed opinion but I gather that the majority of physicists aren't buying this theory so Dr. Verlinde should first convince his colleagues then I would take him seriously.
Seems to me the Higgs Field needs to come into play. Does the Higgs Field change in field density near a black hole?
This theory does not deny Einstein's theory. In fact, you can esily deduce Newton and Einstein's laws from it. It is extending it.
The difference is in very large scales. Rotation of galaxies we observe is faster than it should be according to Einstein's and Newton equations.
So physicist introduced "Dark matter" to comply with the equations and now everyone is looking for that matter (particles), in CERN for example.
However, with Emergent gravity theory you do not need any such "new" dark matter. This theory predicts the motion of galaxies exactly as we see it right now (calculated in 2017 for some galaxy). And this is the main contradiction to Einsteins theory, which is not good at very large scales.
Again, from Emergent gravity you can very easily deduce both Newton and Einstein laws, so this is more general theory.
I am looking forward to new predictions with this theory.
Look up "information theory" and its relationship to entropy. That part of his presentation is not a new idea, it's been around since WW2 (Shannon) and is not seriously disputed by anyone. In the mathematical sense, Information and entropy are basically synonyms for the same thing, there's nothing anthropomorphic about it, it's just maths.
Did the last slide have the matlab things?
He didn’t explain his theory and just showed some equations. I spent an hour watching this just to see him explain how gravity emerges and the relationship to information theory and how his theory explains dark matter. His talk was a few disconnected and incomplete islands. Smh -.- He should watch some Feynman
Yes, he is not very good in presentation. I was lucky and saw very good physicist presenting core of this theory. I love it since then. The best part is correct prediction of galaxy motion (rotation) which does not need Dark matter.
I can't help thinking there's something to this theory, but I wish he'd explained it a little better. Dark matter and dark energy have always been placeholders until we figure out what's happening. No one declared they are the final answer, just that there is some unexplained variable. I have a feeling that very soon this will all click. The data from the LHC seems to be refuting a lot of the more exotic particles from supersymmetry (if I understand correctly), which tells me there might be a simpler explanation that doesn't require a lot of exotic details. This has that simple elegance, if I understand him right. I don't know if I did understand him though because his talk was 95% review and 5% "new view of gravity," which was the bit I wanted to learn about. He kinda says "trust me, I did the math." That's not very satisfying to a scientist.
frenky29a can you give me a link to that other talk?
Remsey, from what I have understood of other lectures, the information density is defined by Planck space and time. Each Planck cube can only hold one quantum state over one Planck time, and it is the quantum states at that level that define the maximum information in a given quantity of spacetime. That information changes, but the total amount of information is not gained or lost because every Planck speck in spacetime always has one quantum state, even if that state is zero. So are you saying that, as a galaxy rotates, that the massive change of this already-existing information is what causes gravity?
When you put a max of 2 GB on a memory stick, you're not adding anything. You're only flipping zeroes to ones, or in theory vice versa. But the total amount of digits of information (analogous to Planck cubes in a given volume) remains constant. Can you cram more information into a given chunk of spacetime without shrinking the size of Planck cubes?
You should watch his earlier videos when he did an interview. He said he likes to keep his finding a secret. I think he is keeping his cards close to his chest and said all these for the sake of this talk. The other thing is, I know what he is talking about but since his theory is new it is difficult for him to know what people don't know. When someone knows a lot about something he thinks other know what he is talking about so when they summarise it, it gets lost. He gave a long intro to show how our understanding of gravity has changes based on the technology and data we had at the time. Now he is saying the universe in a larger scale has more clue on how gravity works. It is like trying to understand weather by measuring the temperature and behaviour of one bucket of water in 10 min. We are measuring the gravity in a very isolated manner. We can see that studying the new data within the last 20 years has show so many anomalies such as dark energy and dark mater, black holes etc. So he is trying to explain all that in terms one one theory rather than adding makeshift theories that has not been verified at all. The best way to watch this kind of videos is to listen to him and try to see it his way, not to see how it fits into your model which is obviously wrong and it does not explain many things.
I like to ask if you are Iranian (from your name) ? If so please contact me as I have a interesting theory that you may be interested in too.
Excellent presentation. Many thanks.
Elementary particles? Hrrrumph. It's turtles all the way down.
Question... if a black hole fell into another black hole... which nothing? Can escape from... does that also include gravity from the smaller black hole? ... everything except.. what? Bosons? Or gravity waves cancelling each other out... how does that work...
It's magic. It's the kind of magic even you could have learned in high school... if you had payed attention in class. ;-)
If gravity cannot propogate faster than light, how does it pass the event horizon?
Perhaps because gravity is per definition how space-time filled with matter looks like. In that sense gravity does not travel in space but is a property of space itself. Gravity is how space-time looks like, i.e. the "look" is what we call gravity. If that was not the case, then gravity would not exist to start with. If you change the matter content or distribution you change the look. It is that change in look which cannot travel faster than the speed of light. That look is not affected by gravity but the energy/matter distribution. The look _is_ the gravity and is determined by the energy/matter distribution - not gravity. I.e. gravity is not a cause but a consequence and therefore it is not affect by itself.
A good question. I have thought about it and cannot find any answer except that nothing except hawking radiation comes out of a black hole. So the gravity only exists outside the horizon. This contradicts the idea that you can fall through the horizon and notice nothing. Also if a black hole can have a spin, how would we know it had a spin if nothing comes out of it?
*Coastwalker -* when a black hole has angular momentum, it changes the shape of the event horizon and creates an ergosphere around it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
+Nam Mam Hi this makes sense to me.
My current understanding of Einstien's field equations is that they are the laws of conservation (of mass, energy, momentum and the like). The difference with Newton's laws is that the equations are equally valid for any observer, no matter where they are or how fast they are going.
I expect the black hole keeps it's gravity well in the same way a gyroscope stays upright.
I have been functionally blind without glasses my entire life. If I hold my finger a few inches from my face without glasses there is an area of focus past my finger. Does gravity come into play with this phenomenon? It works in essence the same way gravitational lensing in effect.
Everybody needs Albert Einstein in their subscriptions. 😁😁😁
To Einstein! The worlds greatest prophet. As it was foretold, so it has come to pass...
This is true. But I lack a proof.
Thanks for your reply Joseph, my comment was actually a bit of a nerdy joke directed at the original poster, Albert Einstein who said 'Everybody needs Albert Einstein in their subscriptions.' and had nothing at all to do with the real Einstein's work.
I don't know why you think I belong to a cult, I would need that explained.
It would also be nice if you could talk about where Einstein predicted 'celestial bodies doing odd shit during a total eclipse' because that is not any part of any theory of gravity that I am aware of.
Kim loving this. Asking Einstein to speake to us from heaven.
.. and people say science isn't becoming religion .. ::rolleyes::
He said that spacetime is so stiff. I find it amazing that we can still occupy a region in spacetime, a thing we cannot do occupying the space occupied by a massive material object.
This guy just keeps waffling on and on, when is he going to get to the point? Im 54 minutes in?
i gave up at 32 mins... waste of time. next video.
47 min and i am down to comments
Yep - whenever I come across someone who says they have a groundbreaking new idea and can't get to the point within 5 minutes I start to smell a rat...
+jagara1
You can just go and read his paper, it's on arxiv (Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe). Just kidding, you won't understand shit.
Difficult to understand does not equal correct.
I have problems with some of the explanations in this talk - he says that light travels in a curved line which is incorrect. Light travels in a straight line, it is space-time that is curved. It's a really important distinction to understand and even for novices like myself it's really important not to refer to light as being curved.
It's a good theory, but there's tons of missing pieces it needs a better foundation, thus a great theory is presided and easy to understand.
There is a better theory of gravity that fits all the missing pieces at... neuvophysics then the dot then the com.
Ricardo Alvarado and
It used to be the case that an idea in theoretical physics was only publicized after the math had been pretty much worked out. That no longer seems to be the case. Dr. Verlinde's lecture is speculation, very intelligent and educated speculation, but still just that.
Russell K. Bonney That guy is a crank. You might as well provide a link to a copy of The Bible. Please leave religion out of physics. It really has no place here.
i think its a sghit theory
I'm no physicist but I never liked the dark matter idea. I've been wondering if anyone was working on a theory like this. Glad I stumbled upon this video.
Dark matter is just a placeholder for an observed phenomenon until we figure out how to extend our theories. The Janus Model of the Cosmos (ruclips.net/video/YkuWTnjuJ68/видео.html) looks like a reasonable step in that direction.
I knew it! I love this change in mainstream science how only couple years ago it would've been a heresy to say such things :)
this theory fails to explain a litany of other observable phenomena that wimp dark matter does explain perfectly well, so no, you and your cadre of clueless armchair physicists (read: cranks) didn't "know" anything.
no need to be so salty it's just a joke.. im very far from physicist :) im just a humble proponent of simulation theory.
lol to both of you's
It doesn't answer anything that the magic man in the sky hypothesis cant answer either.... :P
you mean doesn''t matter, which has no effect on the universe whatsoever
His observation that the deviation between expected and measured velocities of gravitational rotation occur at the Hubble Constant is interesting and definitely a clue to the underlying mechanism. But his assertion that this is a consequence of quantum entanglement was not elucidated at all in the lecture; furthermore most particles aren't entangled, so proposing that the gravitational force arises from entanglement seems somewhat odd. Information theory is currently the hot trend in physics but it's presently unclear whether or not this will actually turn out to be helpful. Each generation of physicists tends to elaborate on current technologies (steam = kinetics, electricity = wave functions, computing = information theory) but many times the elaborations turn out to be dead-ends because analogies are often misleading. We shall see what develops over the coming decades.
gee, I didn't see anything new here at all. so many videos on the same info already
wow what an amazing talk thank you Dr Erik
If he's right, then it is a fatalistic view of our future. I black hole is a sphere so even a singularity cannot be flat, so wouldn't we continue on forever in an inverse position?
No explanation of Bullet cluster dark matter decoupling observations, no explanation of the CMB anisotropy acoustic / frequency spectrum, no explanation of supernovae distance observations, all of which point to dark matter actually being real. Just another mond-y flavor of the week. lame
10mintwo
Keep something in mind, my friend. PI doesn't invite irreputable scientists to give talks.
appeal to authority much? Einstein thought QM couldn't be right because "god doesn't play dice", he was wrong. Reputability is no guarantee of correctness.
And yet everyone who wants to take a look at relativity and it's problems is treated like a crackpot. I mean of course it's a very successful theory but it obviously has holes, yet everyone keeps shooting down people that try looking at things differently. So it seems reputability does function as a guarantee of correctness for a lot of people.
I'm sure he could cover these points to some degree. I don't think something so big can be taken on by a single person.
"...it obviously has holes..." heh - circularly-defined Black Holes..
I like the concept, but I am not sure it will all work out. Why do some galaxies have a larger fraction of their mass in dark matter compared to other galaxies of similar mass?
Ye gods, this guy is hard work to follow. I lasted 15 minutes of his robotic, morse code delivery and moved on to something easier on the ear.... He is no Feinman.....
Actually, I thought he explained it rather well. Try watching some related videos of PBS Space-Time (Black Holes, Dark Matter, etc) and then re-visiting this. Perhaps some ancillary information will help.
You can tell he would probably be more animated conversing in his first language. (German Maybe? )
Feynman.
2 x speed and captions are your friend. I've got through a lot of videos with people with annoying or boring voices that way
He's a Dutch scientist, so that'd probably be Dutch.
Good theory.. can't this be tested by observations of stars around a stellar black hole? Even though they are not as big as SMBH, shouldn't it exhibit similar behavior to a lesser extent?
Theoretical nonsense. See the Thunderbolts project
pff lolz
EU has too many holes in it to even be considered at this time.
@@insinsnoma4285 Like what, exactly? The EU model answers more questions than the standard model does.
Do you think there could be kinetic energy stored in black holes?
How does one measure electrons that are not in a state of flowing?
liked the comment about virtual particles, but instead of total annihilation, could the result also leave a residue?
Brian Cox and Richard Feynman both explained the concepts of gravity and entropy as well as temperature in their own lectures and documentaries in both a beautiful and insightful manner
So a body matter may gravitate to itself, or to its own position in the past, to be more specific, if it moves relatively fast or far enough? In that case, we won't need an additional mass. Instead, we will need to count the same mass we have multiple times, or am I getting it wrong?
1) You assume that Newton's law is proportional to the area , but (1/r^2) also means curvature. 2) Are we all (as a matter created from space at black hole horizon) entangled with black hole?
What is the dimensionality of information? If a line is 1 dim, a point is 0 dim would information be undefined?
it might be like a pair of points
Question??? Why does it appear that all forms of gravity has circulation? Yet some say a black hole has no in and out, only in???
43:00 virtual particle pairs can recombine or the can recombine with a virtual particle next to them. That causes a motion. That motion is energy. Slightly space time bends. Slightly more virtual particles are moved to this region whill there oposit pair goes out. That is how gravity works.
Now we got so much positive particles stacked on that side that we might as well call it matter.
That is one way of describing it.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see him address the Bullet Cluster and the filament network (the normal achilles heal of modified gravity theories)
I really like his approach. You look at where things crack to see if they are good.
How long do we have to hear the chirp?
Erik is one of the few top physicists who dears to take a contrarian or at least novel perspective of things. Wish there could be more. He understands that before even considering ''Dark Energy' as a fix for gravity, we should first understand what gravity is all about and how it operates. He is actually very close to the solution: Gravity is the emergent off-setting effect of SPEED of (and within!!) Mass. The essential part he missed (as did even Einstein) is that gravity is fundamentally a LONGITUDINAL spacetime contraction opposite to the vector of speed. At high speeds of macro objects this becomes noticeable ( Einstein's covers this in his special relativity 'length contraction' but fails to relate it to spacetime contraction) . Within restmass we have an identical longitudinal ST contraction process going on since each atom has high spinning sub atomic particles. It is only because all these atoms are utterly unaligned that their collective ST contraction (which we traditionally call 'Gravity') APPEARS to work radially (this is Einsteins' GR). So now we see what makes stars at the outer spiral arms stay in their position; their speed induced EXTRA macro gravity (with a gradient!) binds them together. Given their different speed vectors, approximations like in MOND are allowed. Problem solved!
@Dan Solomon Sure. Wall is correct in so far that he understands that at the subatomic scales (sub Planck scale), energy forms the grid, not space. As such we live in a dual continuum. It can be derived that inside our galaxy it is indeed again this 'energy' based continuum that dominates outside the border of our wider solar system. As such our galaxy would unfortunately be a singularity, embedded in the wider ST dominated continuum of our observable universe. Wall however makes the mistake in that he only promotes one side of the coin, namely his 'electric' (or 'energymass') continuum. Mainstream however is also correct in upholding their spacetime continuum and Einsteins GR. Wall makes a complete fool out of himself to attack this very well documented and equally valid mainstream supported setup. The answer lies in the combination both. Inside our solar system the ST setup dominates. Duality is the hardest thing for humans to see, but it forms the root of physics from the subatomic to the widest universe scale. In a more comprised form, it is the same answer that also explains particle-wave duality.
@Dan Solomon Hi Dan. It's a long story. When the goal is to eliminate every physical paradox we know via reversed engineering principles, the most symmetric and simplistic (and therefor likely) outcome is that there must be duality at the root of physics. Meaning there is duality between the four functions of a continuum (Grid Clock, Potential, Inertia) and the four core ,measures (Space, Time, Energy, Mass). At the sub atomic scale energy and space switch functions as do time and mass. This dual setting basically explains any and all issues we have in physics. The consequence is that we would have a spacetime (=ST short) dominated observable universe, which allows for singularities (Galaxies) dominated by the alternative continuum setup (Energy Mass). Inside this energymass (EM) continuum (our galaxy) there would again be energymass singularities which would be ruled by the ST continuum (our wider solar system). And inside this ST continuum you again have micro ST singularities (atoms) which are ruled by the ME continuum, which again have ST singularities at their core (neutrons, protons) etc etc. So you basically have the same pattern alternating again and again. The problem mainstream has, is they only look at physics form one setup (the ST setup). The problem Wall has is that he only looks at physics form the alternative continuum (EM continuum). Once you combine them into an orthogonal dual system, we all can go home and drink a beer....
He's using Leonard suskind's holographic principle for his own model of gravity. It's pretty interesting how everything is progressing.
Perimeter, why is this video interlaced?
this made me think of Victor Borge a great great guy! thankyou for this!!!
Verlinder seems to say that energy/matter can be simplified to photon information. That's probably true but what about the coordinate system, i.e. space-time, isn't that also the other part of the information that makes up our universe? That does not seem to be enclosed in the photonic qbits, or is it?
He says that space is made up out of q-bits, and that the information is stored there, and not mostly in photons as conventional science has it.
I understood it the other way: that all the info is in photons (quanta) and that gravity (does that include space-time, per Einstein?) is an emergent property.
Space-time is quantized or "pixelated" per the Plank length and time but how does *h* encode info?
I wish i understood this theory, it;s very interesting. Is the view here that entanglement, and entropy are contributers to gravity? I am not sure i understand how gravity could be an emergent property based on entropy or entanglement, its hard to form a conceptual picture of how it could work. Does anyone have an idea?
What a brilliant presentation :)
Just wondering if gravity or the electromagnetic field of the star is bending the light path?
@Dan Solomon yes, upon some search I found out the same - the Sun's corona - plasma ruclips.net/video/CnvOybT2WwU/видео.html
How is Dr Verlinde's model different than modified newtonian dynamics?
On an acumulating body of fallings and axpantions the diferance between them is the gravity.
What a great lecture!
Could this explain Mach's principle?
Interesting but I just have a question: Do we not first need to find out if gravity is just a surface phenomenon, "emerging" from external forces acting on the surface of a large object? Drop tower tests cannot really confirm/discern because they operate within the Earths' gravity field at the surface. We need to test what precisely the surface does, what its role is, and how it influences measured values. The test for this is to inflate two balloons in space and measuring gravity around them with sensitive gravimeters and move them outside of the Earth's gravity well (for as much as possible). If Newton's law holds up, and this gravity hypothesis holds, then the mere fact of one balloon being larger than the other will result in a difference in measured gravity at the surface. The relation between m and G in Netwon's gravity formula's might be masking a different phenomenon. It would also explain why A or Area plays a role in more recent formula's. For added rigidity: make sure that the larger balloon has the same mass as the smaller balloon and both are made from the same elements and both are evacuated after their inflation (some type of UV rigidizing material). Depending on the sensitivity of your detector, this is an experiment that would not cost a lot of money. Maybe it can even be performed with inflatable cubesats and then it would only cost you a couple of hundreds of thousands of Euro's. You can assume that existing theories would invalidate the merit of even performing this experiment, but the experiment hasn't been performed outside of Earth's gravity well. (The hammer and feather on the moon are a different type of experiment. Composition could play a role, that is why I prefer using only the same materials). If nothing happens you've lost a million Euro's. If a difference is measured, all of the sudden you can create artificial gravity at will and learn something fundamental about the world and gravity empirically for a minuscule fraction of the cost of a LISA gravity detector. And you have centuries of Data to fill in the emerging picture. Maybe the relation between mass and G is different than what is known today.
Push gravity theories, another alternative, do explain why we see the observed speeds at the center and edge of the galaxy, so maybe one should not disregard them as a possibility.
thank you so much for posting this!
A common misconception: the gravity field is not embebed in the space-time fabric. The Gravity Field IS Newton’s space + time. At the end all there exists are co-variant fields.
Who's that boy at 1:03:47 ?
On a acumulation o bodys (ex. proton + neutron) the falling is greater then expantion proportional with the summe of arias of a body -> Strong Force
Not the most eloquent of English-speaking theoretical physicists, but certainly one of the most eloquent minds of our time.
WE KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT! NASA LIES !! NASA STANDS FOR NOT ALWAYS TELLING TRUTHS.. NO REAL SCIENTIST WILL TELL YOU GRAVITY IS UNDERSTOOD. !! WE FLAT EARTHERS HAVE 100% PROOF OF FLAT EARTH. WE HAVE MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING !!
Where does the bottom of the black hole terminate? My guess is it vents into another universe that is on a different plane where it expands.
Hybrid Vre there is no bottom. A black hole is a misnomer. Hole in the sense that light can go in but not reflect out. Think of it as a giant magnet that binds everything that it attracts with no possibility of escape. Matter is simply crushed to the densest possible point once it crosses the gravitational horizon and is pulled to the center. It is added to the mass and increases the gravitational pull. Like space quicksand.
Having read the ideas related to black holes and how many people just repeat what they have read is not impressive. The idea that the Universe expands makes sense. The idea that black holes collect and vent makes sense from some points of view and nonsense from other viewpoints. Due to the fact that we are looking at the Universe from our point of view and ours only does not make our viewpoint the only view
They say that light or photon is a radiation.. Inside a blackhole they say light cant escape..And now they say blackhole emit radiation.. how this radiation escape?
Larry Furigay Look up “Hawking Radiation.” Basically, it’s a quantum mechanical effect - virtual particle pairs are always appearing at the quantum scale, and then disappear almost instantaneously. In the presence of the extremely strong gravitational field near the event horizon of a black hole, sometimes one of the particles in these virtual particle pairs falls into the black hole, but the other escapes and becomes a real particle. But, in order for the books to balance, so to speak - in other words, in order for conservation of energy to hold - the mass of the escaping particle has to come from somewhere. And it comes from the black hole, because the part of the particle pair which falls into the black hole has negative energy.
So, the term “black hole” is something of a misnomer - all black holes radiate, but the stellar and supermassive black holes do so almost incomprehensibly slowly, with lifetimes exceeding the current age of the universe by many orders of magnitude (indeed, all naturally occurring black holes are actually growing on net, because their temperature is far lower than the CMB, so they’re slowly growing even if there’s no matter feeding them). However, the smallest black holes that could be artificially produced using concentrated x-ray lasers would actually glow incredibly brightly; indeed, they would be an ideal power source in many cases, capable of converting mass into energy far more efficiently than even the most efficient forms of nuclear fusion, and with similar efficiency to matter-antimatter annihilation. A black hole with a mass of about a gigaton would be an excellent power source - especially if you could “feed” it and maintain a stable mass, although that’s difficult because the BH would be extremely tiny and putting off huge amounts of gamma radiation, rather like attempting to stuff a boulder down a fire
hose at full blast - particularly for interstellar spacecraft.
Mass in kilograms = Charge in Coulombs squared x 10 to the power minus 7 divided by distance between two charges in meters. Thus, gravity = electromagnetism = weak interaction = strong interaction. There is no 4 separate, distinct interactions, but only one, which to conform with popular expectation, we can name "quantum gravity".
Things farther away are moving away faster because of how much in the past they are, keeping in mind that expanded time is not a valid measure of historical time.
I did not understand what he answered about question related to Bullet cluster. Maybe due to lack of understabding it seems to me that he avoided to answer the question. In fact the Bullet cluster is really heavy argument for dark matter.
At the interface of event horizon, pulling matter and pushing antimatter reminded me Greenglow documentary and the theory of Dr Dragan Hajdukovic that antimatter creates antigravity
Erick, you'll know the real true nature of gravity when I publish my theory of the real true nature of gravity soon, a result of my 30-year fundamental research on gravity in Singapore.
Please do an objective video on the Electric Universe and Plasma physics. Thank you.
This gives me shivers