They only get along as long as the physicist doesn't decide to write anything in physicists' math notation down or claims that the logarithm is virtually constant and the mathematician doesn't require the physicist to prove that the function they're about to integrate does in fact have an antiderivative.
The hardest thing in life is to be smart enough to know that you are not smart enough. I desperately wish I could understand this content better. It is fascinating.
As xkcd 896 (Marie Curie) says, "...You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." This suggests that no one person, no matter how great, understands everything well. If your life's passion isn't math and physics, that doesn't diminish who you are even slightly. Thankfully, specialists and educators like those at PBS Space Time exist so we can trust what they know and follow along the best we can.
This switching of the role of space and time inside the black hole is kind of what Interstellar was hinting at near the finale when Cooper began experiencing a connection to time rather than space. Although the idea he could interact with his past I'm not sure about, I believe this switching of the roles was what the film was hinting at. Great episode!
This could be however I do believe the reason was more so to demonstrate kinda how a 5th dimensional being would see and use time, as a physical thing they could interact with.
I never thought I could be taught to appreciate pain, but the way my brain hurts when I watch PBS space time just did that. This was certainly the case with this episode. I want to go full brain-masochist now.
THANK you Henry. Your generosity makes life a bit more interesting for broke people like myself that couldn't give like you did. I'm grateful too, not just the host of this great show.
Watching the first time, I barely understand a thing. But after watching a few times, things just click into place and make perfect sense. It's been this way for me since Gabe was hosting.
I laugh everytime he says something that implies those of us that are fascinated by modern physics and do not have at least a masters are not going to struggle a bit to follow, gees does keep me coming back
It makes sense to me now! I have Borderline and see things in emotions and math. This. Video in a weird but fun way, explains human relationships... With (math) There's one frame. Where when I saw it. "oh that does make sense to me as a greif therapist who does math". Because math is about being right, being human is about letting... Go.
Right? I can't stop watching these videos, but I literally don't understand anything that's happening in them. This is my fifth video where he's tried to explain what he means by "space becomes time", and I think I'm JUST starting to understand it now. And I'm probably wrong.
Trust me, even people who do this for a living (me if I don't mess up lol), no-one knows how to do basic arithmetic; we have good ol' calculators for that
These videos are way above what I currently understand, however I love them and can't get enough. Please keep up what you guys are doing, it's beautiful and interesting.
@@whatdoiknowsmith Stephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity.[2] His body of work consists primarily of articles that he posts at either viXra or his own personal website,[3][4] thus steering clear of the peer review process. He has also been a frequent guest speaker at the annual EU conferences held by the Electric Universe crowd.[5][6][7]
The information contained in this is a lot more important than the kardashyins or whatever mind numbing rubbish that is opium for the masses. So how can you say anything derogatory about the work they put in these videos.
I usually just take it as "makes sense to the average mathematician and physicists", not as "makes sense to the average high school or college student" since these videos are meant for mathematicians and physicists anyway! Not for people who aren't even passionate in these topics.
The whole video in a nutshell:- If the distance between the centre of masses of any two objects is zero, it results in a singularity, both according to Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Proper time is the time measured by a clock following a worldline in spacetime. All observers, whether inertial or accelerating, will agree on the same spacetime intervals of events at sub-light speeds. Singularities are only possible if infinite densities are possible. The Schwarzchild metric is used to measure the gravity around a spherical mass with no charge, angular momentum and the universal cosmological constant are 0. It also mentions about the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. They are coordinates, i.e. a system which uses one or more numbers to determine the position of a geometric object in a manifold. They are used in Schwarzschild geometry (spherically symmetric objects) to predict the position of radial null geodesics. A geodesic basically tells us about a straight line on a curved spacetime. The worldline of a particle free of any other external forces other than gravity is a geodesic. A freely moving or falling particle in a gravitational influence always moves along a geodesic. Null geodesics are the worldlines of photons. Radial geodesics are the ones which directly move away or towards the central mass. Inside a black hole, space & time switch their roles and you do not experience any spacetime interval. You just spend time. Even an outgoing light ray will take an infinite time to come out.
I love that the Schwarzchild metric is named after Schwarzchild, as it should be. If the man was alive today I hope the fact that millions of people know his name and story would bring him some joy. For those who don't know the man was a soldier in WW1, and died shortly after discovering this solution.
I've never gotten so hyped for a weekly documentary before in my life lol. Your series on black holes is just really awesome. I'd really love it if you guys would do an episode covering rotating and charged black holes, provided you're not getting a bit burned out on that topic at this point. They sound fascinating and I've heard that they have all sorts of weirdness all their own, but I've never found anything discussing them in detail that didn't involve a lot of math that went right over my head.
As a mathematician, I can tell you it's physics. In mathematics, whenever you do division by zero, you use limits to show that it tends to Infinity. That's also how Matt gets infinite force in his equations. You literally CAN'T divide by 0 the normal way, he's just using limits to show that the values tend to infinity. Physics however does break, because infinite force implies infinite acceleration, which implies infinite velocity in finite time and so on.
@@susmitamohapatra9293 i see what you're getting at, but if you want to get technical on a rhetorical question, they're both the same. That's because "approaching zero" is not the same as "zero", just as "approaching infinite velocity" is not the same as "infinite velocity". Both are broken..infinite velocity is impossible in the physical universe, and dividing by zero is impossible in math. We can only approximate/tend to both.
@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 Good point, however in mathematics it is possible to define something to equal to n if it approaches n. Example: 1 + 1/2 +1/4 + 1/8 +... approaches 2 so we define it to be equal to 2. Similarly as 1/n becomes larger as n approaches 0, it would be possible to say that at n=0, 1/n = infinity. However there are 2 reasons why 1/0 is still considered undefined. 1. When you start from n = -1 and make n larger till n = 0, 1/n starts from -1 and keeps decreasing. So we can also define that at n=0, 1/n = - infinity. This is a contradiction as we defined that n=0, 1/n = + infinity, so 1/0 is undefined, it is either +infinity or -infinity. 2. Infinity itself is not defined in either physics or normal mathematics. However it can be defined using higher mathematics. This is not used in daily life though and has no meaning in physics. So truthfully both normal math (with real numbers) and physics break at infinities. Math might just be more flexible to change. Physics requires quantities that describe the real world so terms such as infinite velocity are meaningless.
These videos are what made me love physics. Once you properly dive into these topics and try to understand the math, this stuff is even cooler. I appreciate the number of people in the comments saying how cool this is even though they don’t understand! That’s the beginning of all physicists! If your capable, pursue this interest in physics, I have and I now feel like I’m learning more about what’s real in the universe than ever before!
Not quite a "number": for an analyst infinity is rather some formal symbol which does not have specific definition. In analysis we only define what does it mean "to approach infinity" without defining infinity itself. In set theory there is a whole big theory of infinities (ordinals and/or cardinal numbers) but calling these "infinities" a "numbers" is a bit perversion since you can do only limited "arithmetic" with those "numbers". There is rather not a good natural example of some algebraic structure deserving to be called "numbers" which contains infinity and where infinity behaves as it ought to behave, ex. if you consider the so called semigroup (assume abelian) (S,+) (which is very very weak algebraic structure) containing an element oo with the property that for each x in S we have x+oo=oo then if you perform the canonical construction of the group from this semigroup (the so called Grothendieck construction) you obtain the trivial group. In measure theory infinity works fine as long as you consider positive measures (for signed mearures or complex valued one assumes finite values of those measures)
Every time I log onto RUclips and there's a Space Time video, it's always the first one I click. Absolutely love the channel and the work you do, keep on being awesome!!!
Towards both black holes at the same time. When two horizons are merging the holes themselves are also merging at a great speed. An object between the two will be drawn to the center of the heaviest hole but the lightest hoe will be drawn in even faster, meaning that the object will get closer to both holes simultaneously.
Gareth Dean got it right IMO. If instead we consider a situation prior to the meeting of the event horizons, and likely including the exact moment when the 2 horizons meet, if you put a physical object at the center of mass of the whole system it will eventually reach a point where the difference in gravitational pull at every part of the object is so strong that it will shear and spaghettify towards both black holes at the same time.
It's not about just "what" Matt has to say, but more about "how" he says it. For me, it's about the process he uses to introduce then dig into concepts and ideas, and then how to play with them. The selective use of rhetorical questions, the pregnant pauses to give us a moment to let something sink in or to encourage us to leap ahead to the next step, along with other teaching and interaction tools. Matt is a storyteller who pulls us to the edge of our seats. For Physics!
I don't use adblocker for channels that I support - making these videos is often a full-time job for them, and for really ramped up channels like this there's usually always other staff or workers doing things. I'm ok giving them the ad revenue they need to keep expanding and produce better videos.
8:22 You know. Scientists and mathematicians do part of the work when we design new applications and technologies. We still need a other layer. The mechanic. The person who has real world application experience. I’m trying to speak to the idea that sometimes babes understand things that the elite cannot. ❤
If space starts to act like time, does that mean that time starts to act like space where you can move along the axis "freely" but you always end up at the center?
@@grizzomble Just think, once past the event horizon, one wouldn't see a point ahead. But rather, one will experience the whole world crashing around them! That realization blew my mind. Maybe, black hole indeed doesn't have an interior. What happens is exactly what the external observer sees. One gets increasingly red shifted and "vanishes" at the event horizon.
I take it space would no longer be 3 dimensional but actually folded and warped and you couldn’t go straight but would be thrown around randomly and violently in all directions but eventually you’d hit the center. It’s not a where but when, when moving through space. You can’t go straight to get to a specific location but have to be moved there
@@introvertedextrovertedtraver correct me if im wrong but i think u will never reach the centre because u will be already vaporized into hawkins radiation
@@Sharenaaaaa That’s for a smaller blackhole which has stronger tidal forces and the accretion disk should heat you up into a plasma due to friction. However if you were to be protected by some sort of indestructible plating on a ship, and was crossing the event horizon of a supermassive blackhole, there would be other issues to deal with outside of being vaporized. However you are correct as your initial concern is vaporization which would occur when approaching
Thank you very much for making physics so exciting to learn about! My freshman high school physics teacher lost me to hormones. Thankfully, now, I realize there's more to life, the universe, and everything, than kissing!
Photon Paradox? At [9:34] he says, "Anything capable of traveling at light speed can only have a spacetime interval of zero. From its perspective, a photon exists in a single instance." A couple of questions...Imagine a photon reaching the Hubble Space Telescope today had originally been emitted from a star in the early universe 13 billion years ago. Einstein’s Special Relativity tells us, traveling at the speed of light, that from the photon’s frame of reference, no time will have passed for the photon between the moment it was emitted from the star and the instant it was recorded by the Hubble telescope. (This idea is echoed in the quote above.) In addition, at the speed of light, the length contraction (or Lorentz contraction) is said to shrink the distance between these two objects (the ancient star and the Hubble telescope) to zero. But herein lies the apparent paradox in two parts: 1) In the early universe 13 billion years ago when the star first emitted the photon, there was no Hubble Telescope for the photon to instantaneously collide with from its frame of reference. In other words, how can the photon instantly collide with something which won't be invented for 13 billion years? Does it have something to do with Eternalism (a.k.a. the block universe theory)? 2) Given the complete length contraction of all points in space to zero at the speed of light, how can a single photon ever be absorbed at any one particular point when, if all distance between points in the universe is zero from the photon’s frame of reference, the photon will hit each and every point throughout the universe simultaneously, not just one?
"In other words, how can the photon instantly collide with something which won't be invented for 13 billion years?" Because it doesn't experience time. For a photon, there is no such thing as "13 billion years". We experience time like we read a book. Every second, every day, every year is one more page that we flip. The photon sees all pages at once.
Have been learning how to interpret through words on scientific researches. Well explained, the singularity (the non-zero rest mode, as described by another PhD level). Thanks for the interpretations which enable others to understand what is done. 👍
It's almost as if spacetime is quantized rather than continuous, and the idea of "0 distance" between two separate objects is inherently invalid. That would suggest spacetime is similar to every single other aspect of reality ever encountered. How crazy would that be? Obviously it's got to be continuous and not quantized, like nothing else in the universe is.
Spacetime IS quantized. Things below planck length or planck time are fuzzy and indefinable. In a other words: Spacetime is made out of pixels. Planck Pixels.
mrspidey80 No, that we can't meaningfully measure beyond a certain point does not mean measurements beyond that point do not exist. What you're saying is roughly like saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist.
So, can someone help me understand this singularity thing in the center of a black hole. You are supposed to have a point of infinite density. But infinite density means either infinite mass or infinitely small space. And since the mass of any black hole is not infinite, this leaves us with the second option. So, is that possible? Can we have an actual point, that is infinitely small? Wouldn’t that mean that the space is not quantized? And is it quantized at all?
When the radius of the singularity equals 0 (r=0) which, means we have to divide by zero in the equations, and in mathematics the expression rs /r when r=0 has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming rs≠0) rs, and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 is also undefined; when it is the form of a limit, it is an indeterminate form. But the cosmetologist just gives it an arbitrary meaning of Infinity, in other words it is an ad hoc Construction with no real scientific reasoning. Absurdity ; black holes cannot exist in nature. The observed phenomena is a miss interpretation.
YES! It's called shell theorem, that would be logical, but the outer shells would create outward gravity inhibiting the formation of Infinite density which is required for their precious Black Hole Theory. So what do they do? They just ignore this, and than proceed in writing books on this black hole fallacy. You see, the cosmologist's has to protect this cottage industry, rightly or wrongly, not because of scientific truth, but rather, to protect their priestly reputations .
CAST isn't testing Em-Drive in space! The engine tested/testing in Decemeber 2016 is a classic ion propulsion engine with xenon as propellant(on the payload ShiJian-17 launched by ChangZheng-5 on 11.3). The misunderstanding is likely because we call the ion thruster as "电磁推进"(word to word translation: electromagnetic propulsion), but it only means to say that the ions are accelerated by electromagnetic force. If you do mean this specific experiment, it has nothing to do with Em-Drive!
Mathematics is not restrained to three dimensions the way in which our perceptions are. The equations at the center of the theory of relativity are all four-dimensional tensor equations.
It's not the number of dimensions that may be the problem -- math can arbitrarily increase it's number of dimensions to suit a problem if asked to -- but it could be an artifact in the model (after all, even the best models are made using some initial assumptions). It could also be an insufficiency in math -- Godel's theorem nicely proves that no internally consistent system (including mathematical systems) can be complete (in the case of math it would mean that there are true statements in existence that a single mathematical system cannot produce theorems for). But there might be other explanations for it. The one in the video, if I understood it correctly, is a compelling one. The singularity never comes to be because, once matter enters the event horizon time is so distorted that nothing ever happens. Everything in the blackhole wants to go to the singularity, but will never get there.
No, mathematics happily grinds on in higher dimensions. We can also meaningfully write down the Einstein equation in higher dimensional spacetime. Solving it for the isotropic static case yields a solution that is very similar to what we got in 4-dimensional spacetime. There is one radial coordinate. All the other spatial coordinates don't really matter: they come along for the ride. The solution in n>=4 dimensions is just the one shown in the video, but with r generalized to r^(n-3). So r is still in the denominator and blows things up at r=0.
Phantom = ghost, apparition, spirit, specter, wraith, spook and phantasm, So the ' Phantom Singularity' is imagination without logic which is .fantasy.
This is addressed to Psython; How convenient calling me a kid, this implies you have no real scientific facts to support the reality of a singularity, other than a inconsistent mathematical concept. And here is the reason why, when the radius becomes 0, Rs/R= 0/0. In mathematics, this expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming R≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 is also undefined; Cosmologists just arbitrarily gives it a meaning, without any rationale supporting it, and by definition this is called junk science or pseudoscience. and this is just one of many argument against singularities forming in nature.
Well, if the radius of the singularity equals zero then it must be divided by the radius of the Event Horizon which, is Rs/R or reverse, either way R/Rs it is still 0 if R=0, but now any number divided by 0 is undefined, and if you arbitrarily redefine it to mean Infinity then you relegated to the realm of absurdity, because in particle physics when the results are infinite, it is considered incoherent, which signifies that something is missing or the interpretation of the physics involved is insufficient or just wrong! It must be noted ; When dealing on the scale of a singularity, this is the realm of particle physics.
ruben martinez stating that rs/r or r/rs as either way is not the same. Specially if one of the values is zero. You can just switch the variable places just because they seem to be the same. Totally different things. Once again rs is not zero. Calm your mind, look at the equations and stop trying to desesperately discredit others work.
SInce the time interval for a stationary object at event horizon - -> 0 ,,one would outlive the entire age of the universe... He would literally see the future whizzing past by him at incredible rate... upto a point when his 1 instant = 100000000trillion years(effectively infinite)... Now, how cool is that
lol i was thinking the same thing....that's freakin' awesome! The best thing you can feel before your inevitable death is the universe taking its final breaths right before disapperaing into nothingness
If you draw a Penrose diagram for that physical situation, that's not actually what happens, not all light can catch up to you, so you can't witness infinite future, you do see the time go way faster though, but it ends when the last possible light ray reaches you, and it's a lot less than ''infinite'' future. There is an easy way to see why what you said is not possible, black holes will evaporate before the universe ends, so you can't freeze time in a non-existing event horizon.
yes, but one unfortunate consequence of this would be that all the energy that has ever been emitted in the universe would hit your eye at the same time. Need some serious sunglasses for that event.
What about sphere in a sphere? Both will have a center of mass in the same position. From my experience such spheres will move freely. So we can't only look at center of mass of an object, we should consider every particle individually. If we do so then we have to consider Pauli exclusion principle which from what I understand won't allow two particles be in the same state in one place and time
Not sure what you're saying about spheres within spheres, but Pauli exclusion is not a problem for black holes. Pauli exclusion only prevents identical particles from occupying the same state, but there are always more states available in the same location at higher energy levels. That's why neutron stars, which are held up by the Pauli exclusion principle, will collapse into black holes if enough mass is added to supply the energy to reach those higher energy states. As for what happens inside the event Horizon, we'd need a theory of quantum gravity to talk about that.
Daniel Jensen Yep totally, and black holes don't need infinite mass or energy, no singularities there. The singularity at the centre idea is an incorrect prediction because we don't understand it. Since the OP mentioned hollow spheres, I thought, what if there isn't anything inside an event horizon, and the mass is actually around the horizon, since nothing ever falls in, as seen by an inertial exterior observer.
Yes feed your curiosity, but take care when browsing RUclips or the internet in general if you are as young as you say, but you have aged two years since your post so you must have learnt quite a lot . I agree with Samsung in that.
Go beyond your imagination !!! Die into it!! Human explanation is grand and intelligent.... You have a human question so you get a human answer ... We are so sure we EXIST....
An actual conversation with a friend (after watching this video) :- Me : So time turns into space and vise versa inside a black hole. Friend : What? How? Me : Well..uh....there is this equation... Friend : .... Me : I don't remember the equation but uh...it basically predicts faster than light velocities of objects at the event horizon. Friend : Well, duh, it's a black hole, it even eats up light so... Me : Well ya and that's why space and time reverse roles beyond the event horizon Friend : What?...why...and What does that even mean??? Me : YOU ARE FALLING INSIDE A BLACK HOLE, YOU HAVE ONLY ONE INEVITABLE FUTURE....Getting crushed to.. Friend : TO DEATH, YES! BUT WHY WOULD SPACE AND TIME NEED TO REVERSE ROLES FOR THAT??!! Me : I don't know..this beared Astrophysicist in RUclips told me.... Friend : All scientists have beards... Me : ...I have to watch that video again but that's how it actually is inside a black hole. Friend : Oh! Huh.....Black Holes are pretty hardcore I guess.
Physicist is providing the theoretical explanation based on a set of assumptions [X1, X2, X3, X4, ...]. Problem is that no theory is "confirmed" without some set of experiments that can prove one or more assumptions as being correct. Theoretical explanation is probably a non-null percentage hot air.
@@gilian2587 Yes, it is hard to conduct experiments inside a black hole unless you are Matthew McConaughey (*in PewDiePie voice : then you can just jump right into it)
@@TheDentedHelmet What's funny; and what they didn't mention in this video is the derivation of the Schwarzchild solution. It came from some of the most brittle equations of orbit that exist in the world of physics; Kepler's equations (they are historically useful and interesting -- I have enormous respect for Kepler and Tycho Brahe... however... that doesn't change the fact that the application of those equations of orbit are rather limited). [1] r=r_s; in this context would mean that you literally have an orbit on the Event Horizon; this is after you have already simplified away some "nastiness" by assuming that dr/dt = 0 (you have no radial velocity) and d^2 r/dt^2 = 0 (you have no radial acceleration). So... after deriving the Schwarzchild solution... and after making those assumptions; would you expect to find infinities at r=0? Does it even make sense to try to describe an orbit "on the center of mass for the bloody gravity well"? How would matter even get to r=0; are we assuming that the Pauli Exclusion principle no longer applies for matter in a black hole? Stuff is there; that stuff may be some weird hybrid state between matter and energy; but SOME kind of an exclusion principle would still apply to that stuff, right? In other words; if you are trying to describe physical behavior at (r = r_s, or r = 0); the Schwarzchild Solution is the WRONG MODEL; you gotta go back to the drawing board buddy... nature doesn't have "real" honest to goodness infinities. Nature has very, *very*, VERY large numbers; but infinity doesn't exist... not even for black holes. [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriving_the_Schwarzschild_solution
I find it a nice reference to the doppeltspalt experiment when no time pass for the photon it means there is not passing back in time for it. Only action and reaction falling to the same moment from it perspective.
Newtons Law of Gravitation has a point-mass approximation that fails at r close to the radii of the masses. It is not accurate for small r. Black hole theory is nonfalsifiable. That does not seem to stop string theorists either.
When Di-Electric Acceleration is so high it over throw's Magnetism's ability to keep the so called black hole inside the visible Universe. Mother Nature is not complicated she is more simple than you've ever dreamed imaginable, more simple than 1+2 = 3. Everything is self seeking, pressure mediation, Centrifugal convergence and centripetal divergence. Force and motion inertia & Acceleration Mother Nature is that damn simple. Check Thoria Apophasis on RUclips your brain might explode.
it's me well, that's simplified (the physicist like to do that) 1/x is trending towards infinity when x is trending towards 0. You still can't divide by 0 but you can see what happens when you get closer to 0 and you can prove that the "dividing-by-smaller-and-smaller-numbers-funktion" has no limit which means it goes on until infinity
does it ? what if we set x = -2 and then -1 and then -1/2 .... and smaller and smaller ? The result is not infinity, but minus infinity. So whats the real value of the function at x=0 ? Is it infinity or is it minus infinity ? This means if we have a function and calculate a limes, the direction decides the result and the difference between these 2 results is the maximum discrepancy possible (that's pretty undefined isn't it ?). It's wise to leave this point mathematically undefined as long as there is not a better idea.
Frank Schneider you're absolutely correct, but in the specific case of a black hole forming in theory we have a finite amount of mass that gets compressed in a smaller and smaller space, so that we know the direction and can talk about (theoretical predicted) infinite density. again, not disagreeing with you in any way, the explanation of limits that i gave above is very wrong
uhli1896 No we really can't because you are using Einstein's general relativity to do so, and this is not correct for calculating this phenomenon, as that's a classical, non-quantized theory and therefore lacks any form of quantum effect that play a decisive role at this level. This means you apply a formula to a situation where it is not valid, but take the result for reality. Doesn't make , does it ? What we need is a theory of quantum gravity that is capable of describing the situation we have at the center of a black hole. If this (not yet existing) theory would also result in a singularity this could be a reason to take it for real, but with the current approach (applying a formula where it is not valid, neglecting half of all effects) it doesn't make sense.
Make levels on this channel, or different channels. A low level, so we can understand the basics, then a medium level, and then one where you full on explain current theories, somewhat more in depth than here. This way you want have to baby us for 10 minutes when you reach something complicated in the video- which happens pretty much all the time.
FINALLY A PHYSICIST AND A MATHEMATICIAN GOING ALONG WELL!
Maybe at the moment, but It just can't end well. Never does.
Am I the only one subscribed to both the channels?
They only get along as long as the physicist doesn't decide to write anything in physicists' math notation down or claims that the logarithm is virtually constant and the mathematician doesn't require the physicist to prove that the function they're about to integrate does in fact have an antiderivative.
Yes you are stop asking if you're the only one
So a physicist, and engineer, and a mathematician walk into a bar...
(prepares to watch another episode where he doesn't understand 90% of it but loves it anyways)
The hardest thing in life is to be smart enough to know that you are not smart enough. I desperately wish I could understand this content better. It is fascinating.
yo bro,
As xkcd 896 (Marie Curie) says, "...You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." This suggests that no one person, no matter how great, understands everything well. If your life's passion isn't math and physics, that doesn't diminish who you are even slightly. Thankfully, specialists and educators like those at PBS Space Time exist so we can trust what they know and follow along the best we can.
John Bryant Brilliant comment.
John Bryant Very well said, my friend.
5:18 "It's actually quite easy to see where the singularities are"
Mhm quite indeed it is.
IT is mostly because of the r's in the denominator
"You are so dense that your personal space should be called event horizon"
Sounds like its describing flat earthers
That's a good one. Gonna steal it.
"So you're saying I'm inescapably attractive?"
Thanks now i have a new pick up line, which me luck
Now that's a fat joke right there
blackhole: imma gonna crush you
planet: I use non-euclidian reference
blackhole: F****
*blackhole dissolves*
This switching of the role of space and time inside the black hole is kind of what Interstellar was hinting at near the finale when Cooper began experiencing a connection to time rather than space. Although the idea he could interact with his past I'm not sure about, I believe this switching of the roles was what the film was hinting at. Great episode!
12:36 12:37
12:36 12:37
12:44 12:44
This could be however I do believe the reason was more so to demonstrate kinda how a 5th dimensional being would see and use time, as a physical thing they could interact with.
May this channel live on forever, or at least until the sun's radius starts growing
This is some solid content
RIP Infinite Series tho, they didn't last unfortunately
The sun's radius IS growing
I never thought I could be taught to appreciate pain, but the way my brain hurts when I watch PBS space time just did that. This was certainly the case with this episode. I want to go full brain-masochist now.
THANK you Henry. Your generosity makes life a bit more interesting for broke people like myself that couldn't give like you did. I'm grateful too, not just the host of this great show.
At 8:11 the answer must be 0/0... why? Because Δr^2 = 0 and at the same time 1 - rs/r = 0 in the denominator since r = rs...
You don't have to give like she does to have value. I am sure you give the right things to those who need it in your life. Namaste 🙏
"We are gonna keep it simple" ..ITS A TRAP!
At 8:11 the answer must be 0/0... why? Because Δr^2 = 0 and at the same time 1 - rs/r = 0 in the denominator since r = rs...
Saad Ali Khan But 0/0 is indeterminate. There’s no way to know what number it is.
@@goldenwarrior1186 that's why Singularity of a black hole is still not fully understood
Wow, you've made some gains. Good job
Daniel haha I was thinking the same thing
I don't think it's the case. I think you couldn't correctly perceive his shape because he is always facing the camera.
Looks like even the chicks are noticing. First time he got a girl on his show.
Good one.
this video made me want to hit the gym
I don't even know why I'm subscribed. I barely understand a word he says.
It makes us look smart :p
St3v3z just keep nodding
Try looking up terms you do not know; slowly, bit by bit you'd find yourself more than comfortable learning what is being said.
Watching the first time, I barely understand a thing. But after watching a few times, things just click into place and make perfect sense. It's been this way for me since Gabe was hosting.
St3v3z Thats why you subscribed. You are trying to understand the universe, just like everyone.
"Today we're gonna keep it simple." 🤔😅
Hey he changed some of the Cs to 1....sarcasm...
At 8:11 the answer must be 0/0... why? Because Δr^2 = 0 and at the same time 1 - rs/r = 0 in the denominator since r = rs...
Saad Ali Khan As I said in another reply to you, 0/0 is indeterminate, so it could be any number
I laugh everytime he says something that.
I laugh everytime he says something that implies those of us that are fascinated by modern physics and do not have at least a masters are not going to struggle a bit to follow, gees does keep me coming back
Matt: "That makes sense"
Me: "??? how ???"
She's saying you're in every time zone at once at the north & south pole. A Coordinate singularity.
deepvybes He’s*
@@goldenwarrior1186 its both. Singularity of another kind
It makes sense to me now!
I have Borderline and see things in emotions and math. This. Video in a weird but fun way, explains human relationships... With (math)
There's one frame. Where when I saw it. "oh that does make sense to me as a greif therapist who does math". Because math is about being right, being human is about letting... Go.
I dont know why I'm watching this. I struggle to subtract a darts score.
play 8ball no need to count
Right? I can't stop watching these videos, but I literally don't understand anything that's happening in them. This is my fifth video where he's tried to explain what he means by "space becomes time", and I think I'm JUST starting to understand it now. And I'm probably wrong.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy Darts is an analogy, commonly used by the statistics community, for visually illustrating the density and skew of a distribution.
Trust me, even people who do this for a living (me if I don't mess up lol), no-one knows how to do basic arithmetic; we have good ol' calculators for that
These videos are way above what I currently understand, however I love them and can't get enough. Please keep up what you guys are doing, it's beautiful and interesting.
These videos by PBS Space Time are some of the very coolest vidferos I've seen on RUclips.
Best damn videos on the whole Internet as far as I'm concerned - Both PBS Space Time and PBS Infinite Series! Keep it up guys.
Max C, this is rubbish compared to Steve Coruthers: General Relatively- A Case in Numerology. It'll blow your mind.
@@whatdoiknowsmith
Stephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity.[2] His body of work consists primarily of articles that he posts at either viXra or his own personal website,[3][4] thus steering clear of the peer review process. He has also been a frequent guest speaker at the annual EU conferences held by the Electric Universe crowd.[5][6][7]
If you're actually interested in science, learn science. Otherwise, enjoy this bullshit because that's all that it is.
At 8:11 the answer must be 0/0... why? Because Δr^2 = 0 and at the same time 1 - rs/r = 0 in the denominator since r = rs...
The information contained in this is a lot more important than the kardashyins or whatever mind numbing rubbish that is opium for the masses. So how can you say anything derogatory about the work they put in these videos.
3:02 "Alright, that makes sense." UHhhhhhhm.... TO WHOM?
She's saying you're in every time zone at once at the north & south pole. A Coordinate singularity.
I usually just take it as "makes sense to the average mathematician and physicists", not as "makes sense to the average high school or college student" since these videos are meant for mathematicians and physicists anyway! Not for people who aren't even passionate in these topics.
The whole video in a nutshell:-
If the distance between the centre of masses of any two objects is zero, it results in a singularity, both according to Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Proper time is the time measured by a clock following a worldline in spacetime. All observers, whether inertial or accelerating, will agree on the same spacetime intervals of events at sub-light speeds. Singularities are only possible if infinite densities are possible. The Schwarzchild metric is used to measure the gravity around a spherical mass with no charge, angular momentum and the universal cosmological constant are 0. It also mentions about the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. They are coordinates, i.e. a system which uses one or more numbers to determine the position of a geometric object in a manifold. They are used in Schwarzschild geometry (spherically symmetric objects) to predict the position of radial null geodesics. A geodesic basically tells us about a straight line on a curved spacetime. The worldline of a particle free of any other external forces other than gravity is a geodesic. A freely moving or falling particle in a gravitational influence always moves along a geodesic. Null geodesics are the worldlines of photons. Radial geodesics are the ones which directly move away or towards the central mass. Inside a black hole, space & time switch their roles and you do not experience any spacetime interval. You just spend time. Even an outgoing light ray will take an infinite time to come out.
Oh yeah. That was so much clearer. LOL. Wanna spend time inside a black hole? Sure, it's not like we'd have a choice.
Laymen's terms, Dr. Weir.
"You shouldn't mistake media and internet hype for actual potential."
This is so true it hurts.
Watching this from 2019. Bring back PBS infinite series!!
I love that the Schwarzchild metric is named after Schwarzchild, as it should be. If the man was alive today I hope the fact that millions of people know his name and story would bring him some joy. For those who don't know the man was a soldier in WW1, and died shortly after discovering this solution.
I loved how you bent along with everything else when the blackhole appears... Details man
I've never gotten so hyped for a weekly documentary before in my life lol. Your series on black holes is just really awesome. I'd really love it if you guys would do an episode covering rotating and charged black holes, provided you're not getting a bit burned out on that topic at this point. They sound fascinating and I've heard that they have all sorts of weirdness all their own, but I've never found anything discussing them in detail that didn't involve a lot of math that went right over my head.
I don't actually "watch these videos" as per say, instead I half heartedly listen to convince myself I'm smart...
Thank you very much for all that you do space time!
The real question is what breaks first, mathematics because you divide by zero or physics because of infinite forces.
Its the egg stupid ....laid by a bird that was nearly a chicken .
As a mathematician, I can tell you it's physics. In mathematics, whenever you do division by zero, you use limits to show that it tends to Infinity. That's also how Matt gets infinite force in his equations. You literally CAN'T divide by 0 the normal way, he's just using limits to show that the values tend to infinity. Physics however does break, because infinite force implies infinite acceleration, which implies infinite velocity in finite time and so on.
@@susmitamohapatra9293 i see what you're getting at, but if you want to get technical on a rhetorical question, they're both the same. That's because "approaching zero" is not the same as "zero", just as "approaching infinite velocity" is not the same as "infinite velocity". Both are broken..infinite velocity is impossible in the physical universe, and dividing by zero is impossible in math. We can only approximate/tend to both.
@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 Good point, however in mathematics it is possible to define something to equal to n if it approaches n. Example: 1 + 1/2 +1/4 + 1/8 +... approaches 2 so we define it to be equal to 2.
Similarly as 1/n becomes larger as n approaches 0, it would be possible to say that at n=0, 1/n = infinity.
However there are 2 reasons why 1/0 is still considered undefined.
1. When you start from n = -1 and make n larger till n = 0, 1/n starts from -1 and keeps decreasing. So we can also define that at n=0, 1/n = - infinity. This is a contradiction as we defined that n=0, 1/n = + infinity, so 1/0 is undefined, it is either +infinity or -infinity.
2. Infinity itself is not defined in either physics or normal mathematics. However it can be defined using higher mathematics. This is not used in daily life though and has no meaning in physics.
So truthfully both normal math (with real numbers) and physics break at infinities. Math might just be more flexible to change. Physics requires quantities that describe the real world so terms such as infinite velocity are meaningless.
@@susmitamohapatra9293 I completely agree
These videos are what made me love physics.
Once you properly dive into these topics and try to understand the math, this stuff is even cooler.
I appreciate the number of people in the comments saying how cool this is even though they don’t understand! That’s the beginning of all physicists! If your capable, pursue this interest in physics, I have and I now feel like I’m learning more about what’s real in the universe than ever before!
For mathematicians, infinity it is just a number, for physicist, it means madness.
lmao ok
Infinity is not a number. If you multiply or divide any kind of infinity by N, you still get infinity, you don't get ∞*N or ∞/N.
yeah, but you are also getting an infinitely large or small number no?
Not quite a "number": for an analyst infinity is rather some formal symbol which does not have specific definition. In analysis we only define what does it mean "to approach infinity" without defining infinity itself. In set theory there is a whole big theory of infinities (ordinals and/or cardinal numbers) but calling these "infinities" a "numbers" is a bit perversion since you can do only limited "arithmetic" with those "numbers". There is rather not a good natural example of some algebraic structure deserving to be called "numbers" which contains infinity and where infinity behaves as it ought to behave, ex. if you consider the so called semigroup (assume abelian) (S,+) (which is very very weak algebraic structure) containing an element oo with the property that for each x in S we have x+oo=oo then if you perform the canonical construction of the group from this semigroup (the so called Grothendieck construction) you obtain the trivial group. In measure theory infinity works fine as long as you consider positive measures (for signed mearures or complex valued one assumes finite values of those measures)
Thanks! Very good explanation :)
I am star stuff. My car keys are star stuff. Therefore I am a bagel.
05TE too much acid is not good
I ate you(as a bagel) tomorrow and will sleep nice and full yesterday.
05TE 69th like
Only because a bagel is star stuff!
96th like
Every time I log onto RUclips and there's a Space Time video, it's always the first one I click.
Absolutely love the channel and the work you do, keep on being awesome!!!
log onto RUclips. . .
7:58 "the SWAT shield radiance" says the captions ~
Nice. I found the "That sure is some a*s" at 5:05 even funnier
Every night put one video and try to imagine the narration. A fine insomnia drug and 5 stars for that
I wonder what happens to the space where two event horizons meet before two black holes merge. What happens to objects there? Which way do they go?
The emergence of a third black hole..
Towards both black holes at the same time.
When two horizons are merging the holes themselves are also merging at a great speed. An object between the two will be drawn to the center of the heaviest hole but the lightest hoe will be drawn in even faster, meaning that the object will get closer to both holes simultaneously.
hey gareth, i hv a question..
what happens to the singularity when the black hole evaporates?does it just vanish?
Don't be too curious, you could make the whole matrix bug lol..
Gareth Dean got it right IMO. If instead we consider a situation prior to the meeting of the event horizons, and likely including the exact moment when the 2 horizons meet, if you put a physical object at the center of mass of the whole system it will eventually reach a point where the difference in gravitational pull at every part of the object is so strong that it will shear and spaghettify towards both black holes at the same time.
"you're denser than a singularity"
Someone appreciate my roast plz
Hypernova 3 months later, I'm still appreciating your diss.
Totally using it.
I don't get it.
Hypernova Roast appreciated.
Hypernova I get it
What this is really about is who has the most Eccentric/Expressive body language and physical gestures, Mathematicians or Physicists
Give them a break, they're doing their best to approximate real people! (No one has an exact solution for human behaviour, after all)
Italians?
Out of all the educational talk, 4:39 intrigues me the most.
Marvel: Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover in the history of Space Time.
PBS: Hold my Phantom Singularity.
"In space time we thrust !" :D
It's not about just "what" Matt has to say, but more about "how" he says it.
For me, it's about the process he uses to introduce then dig into concepts and ideas, and then how to play with them. The selective use of rhetorical questions, the pregnant pauses to give us a moment to let something sink in or to encourage us to leap ahead to the next step, along with other teaching and interaction tools.
Matt is a storyteller who pulls us to the edge of our seats. For Physics!
Thumbs up to more journal club episodes. I am looking forward to them.
3:57 She says:..."Being limited by reality is so boring." ….I think I'm in love. LOL
But the constrictions of reality are where the challenges are!
So this is an add to get you to watch more episodes by not explaining then saying it'll be expand in another video.
Genius
I am in love with Kelsey. What a genius!
still in the 6 second ad and i already hit like :)
i know this is gun be gud
Ma man
pssst - adblocker is available.. never have adds
I don't use adblocker for channels that I support - making these videos is often a full-time job for them, and for really ramped up channels like this there's usually always other staff or workers doing things. I'm ok giving them the ad revenue they need to keep expanding and produce better videos.
What did you do with all the free time you got from spelling "good" like that?
Pssst, not having adblocker = supporting this channel.
I wonder if they talk with those exaggerated hand gestures all the time.
Would you rather they stand still? That would be awkward.
Imagine him saying "please, pass me the salt" with all these hand gestures.
Ethan Eves it's distracting
It's offputting for me, tho I enjoy the subjects and am thankful for the efforts they put into these, I'd rather they didn't do that
The way he talks with him hand gestures is extremely awkward, in every episodes
The closed captioning is hilarious especially at 5.06!
5:06
scrolled down the comments just to see if someone else mentions this xD
8:22 You know. Scientists and mathematicians do part of the work when we design new applications and technologies. We still need a other layer. The mechanic. The person who has real world application experience. I’m trying to speak to the idea that sometimes babes understand things that the elite cannot. ❤
If space starts to act like time, does that mean that time starts to act like space where you can move along the axis "freely" but you always end up at the center?
@@grizzomble Just think, once past the event horizon, one wouldn't see a point ahead. But rather, one will experience the whole world crashing around them! That realization blew my mind.
Maybe, black hole indeed doesn't have an interior. What happens is exactly what the external observer sees. One gets increasingly red shifted and "vanishes" at the event horizon.
I take it space would no longer be 3 dimensional but actually folded and warped and you couldn’t go straight but would be thrown around randomly and violently in all directions but eventually you’d hit the center. It’s not a where but when, when moving through space. You can’t go straight to get to a specific location but have to be moved there
@@introvertedextrovertedtraver correct me if im wrong but i think u will never reach the centre because u will be already vaporized into hawkins radiation
@@Sharenaaaaa That’s for a smaller blackhole which has stronger tidal forces and the accretion disk should heat you up into a plasma due to friction. However if you were to be protected by some sort of indestructible plating on a ship, and was crossing the event horizon of a supermassive blackhole, there would be other issues to deal with outside of being vaporized. However you are correct as your initial concern is vaporization which would occur when approaching
@@introvertedextrovertedtraver alright thanks!
I like her video about n-spheres.
John Doe Are you joking?
Daniel He's taking a joke on mathematician vs physicist... way too far.
I really like the more recent video about Lp spaces. Lp spaces are great.
I NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING
Please dont ever stop making videos dude. You are amazing
Nice reload animation
Yo dawg, I heard you like singularities, so I put a singularity in your singularity...
Thank you very much for making physics so exciting to learn about! My freshman high school physics teacher lost me to hormones. Thankfully, now, I realize there's more to life, the universe, and everything, than kissing!
Photon Paradox?
At [9:34] he says, "Anything capable of traveling at light speed can only have a spacetime interval of zero. From its perspective, a photon exists in a single instance."
A couple of questions...Imagine a photon reaching the Hubble Space Telescope today had originally been emitted from a star in the early universe 13 billion years ago. Einstein’s Special Relativity tells us, traveling at the speed of light, that from the photon’s frame of reference, no time will have passed for the photon between the moment it was emitted from the star and the instant it was recorded by the Hubble telescope. (This idea is echoed in the quote above.) In addition, at the speed of light, the length contraction (or Lorentz contraction) is said to shrink the distance between these two objects (the ancient star and the Hubble telescope) to zero. But herein lies the apparent paradox in two parts: 1) In the early universe 13 billion years ago when the star first emitted the photon, there was no Hubble Telescope for the photon to instantaneously collide with from its frame of reference. In other words, how can the photon instantly collide with something which won't be invented for 13 billion years? Does it have something to do with Eternalism (a.k.a. the block universe theory)? 2) Given the complete length contraction of all points in space to zero at the speed of light, how can a single photon ever be absorbed at any one particular point when, if all distance between points in the universe is zero from the photon’s frame of reference, the photon will hit each and every point throughout the universe simultaneously, not just one?
"In other words, how can the photon instantly collide with something which won't be invented for 13 billion years?"
Because it doesn't experience time. For a photon, there is no such thing as "13 billion years".
We experience time like we read a book. Every second, every day, every year is one more page that we flip. The photon sees all pages at once.
Wow that message at the end was... very unexpected. Thanks for that.
Have been learning how to interpret through words on scientific researches. Well explained, the singularity (the non-zero rest mode, as described by another PhD level).
Thanks for the interpretations which enable others to understand what is done. 👍
It's almost as if spacetime is quantized rather than continuous, and the idea of "0 distance" between two separate objects is inherently invalid. That would suggest spacetime is similar to every single other aspect of reality ever encountered. How crazy would that be? Obviously it's got to be continuous and not quantized, like nothing else in the universe is.
Spacetime IS quantized. Things below planck length or planck time are fuzzy and indefinable.
In a other words: Spacetime is made out of pixels. Planck Pixels.
Spacetime is not quantized, if it was we would already have a theory of everything.
Legend Length Sure, but since we can't define anything beyond the planck scale anyway, space is as good as quantized.
mrspidey80 No, that we can't meaningfully measure beyond a certain point does not mean measurements beyond that point do not exist. What you're saying is roughly like saying if we can't see it, it doesn't exist.
Cause we are living in a quantum world. And I am a quantum girl.
2:32 You don't need to have a shot of Matt listening lol, i think we can take it on faith that he is
So, can someone help me understand this singularity thing in the center of a black hole. You are supposed to have a point of infinite density. But infinite density means either infinite mass or infinitely small space. And since the mass of any black hole is not infinite, this leaves us with the second option. So, is that possible? Can we have an actual point, that is infinitely small? Wouldn’t that mean that the space is not quantized? And is it quantized at all?
What happens if you divide by 0?
This is the main issue of discussion prevalent amongst topics regarding the reconciliation of Newtonian mathematics and quantum mechanics.
When the radius of the singularity equals 0 (r=0) which, means we have to divide by zero in the
equations, and in mathematics the expression rs /r when r=0 has no meaning,
as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming rs≠0)
rs, and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression
0/0 is also undefined; when it is the form of a limit, it is an indeterminate
form. But the cosmetologist just gives it an arbitrary meaning of Infinity,
in other words it is an ad hoc Construction with no real scientific reasoning. Absurdity ; black holes cannot exist in nature. The observed phenomena is a miss interpretation.
I'm still wondering why a point singularity rather than an 'onion' style one. This seems to be a contradiction.
YES! It's called shell theorem, that would be logical, but the outer shells would create outward gravity inhibiting the formation of Infinite density which is required for their precious Black Hole Theory. So what do they do? They just ignore this, and than proceed in writing books on this black hole fallacy. You see, the cosmologist's has to protect this cottage industry, rightly or wrongly, not because of scientific truth, but rather, to protect their priestly reputations .
I didn't expect a crossover with infinite series! Even though they're not active anymore, so cool to see this
Both infinite series and space time together - great!!!
Aren't we all stardust and very special. Bless our hearts.
Please list the songs used?
0:00 - 2:00 Slow - Miracle ruclips.net/video/hNd20gNbaJI/видео.html
CAST isn't testing Em-Drive in space! The engine tested/testing in Decemeber 2016 is a classic ion propulsion engine with xenon as propellant(on the payload ShiJian-17 launched by ChangZheng-5 on 11.3). The misunderstanding is likely because we call the ion thruster as "电磁推进"(word to word translation: electromagnetic propulsion), but it only means to say that the ions are accelerated by electromagnetic force. If you do mean this specific experiment, it has nothing to do with Em-Drive!
Thank you for sharing this, that was very interesting. I enjoyed it.
These videos are great. High pace and sometimes hard to follow but very informative.
Is the calculated infinite density of the "core" of a black hole an artifact of the limitations of three dimensional mathematics?
Mathematics is not restrained to three dimensions the way in which our perceptions are. The equations at the center of the theory of relativity are all four-dimensional tensor equations.
Ok. Then, is the calculated infinite density of the "core" of a black hole an artifact of the limitations of four dimensional mathematics?
It's not the number of dimensions that may be the problem -- math can arbitrarily increase it's number of dimensions to suit a problem if asked to -- but it could be an artifact in the model (after all, even the best models are made using some initial assumptions).
It could also be an insufficiency in math -- Godel's theorem nicely proves that no internally consistent system (including mathematical systems) can be complete (in the case of math it would mean that there are true statements in existence that a single mathematical system cannot produce theorems for).
But there might be other explanations for it. The one in the video, if I understood it correctly, is a compelling one. The singularity never comes to be because, once matter enters the event horizon time is so distorted that nothing ever happens. Everything in the blackhole wants to go to the singularity, but will never get there.
No, mathematics happily grinds on in higher dimensions. We can also meaningfully write down the Einstein equation in higher dimensional spacetime. Solving it for the isotropic static case yields a solution that is very similar to what we got in 4-dimensional spacetime. There is one radial coordinate. All the other spatial coordinates don't really matter: they come along for the ride. The solution in n>=4 dimensions is just the one shown in the video, but with r generalized to r^(n-3). So r is still in the denominator and blows things up at r=0.
Ah... divide by zero even breaks quantum computers...Thanks to both of you...
Hey Thanks man ,So When will you start talking about Phantom Singularity ?
Phantom = ghost, apparition, spirit, specter, wraith, spook and phantasm, So the ' Phantom Singularity' is imagination without logic which is .fantasy.
This is addressed to Psython; How convenient calling me a kid, this implies you have no real scientific facts to support the reality of a singularity, other than a inconsistent mathematical concept. And here is the reason why, when the radius becomes 0, Rs/R= 0/0. In mathematics, this expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming R≠0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 is also undefined; Cosmologists just arbitrarily gives it a meaning, without any rationale supporting it, and by definition this is called junk science or pseudoscience. and this is just one of many argument against singularities forming in nature.
According to the vid, only R is equal to 0. Rs is 2GM. Plus, R/Rs=1 because they are at the same position. Check it again.
Well, if the radius of the singularity equals zero then it must be divided by the radius of the Event Horizon which, is Rs/R or reverse, either way R/Rs it is still 0 if R=0, but now any number divided by 0 is undefined, and if you arbitrarily redefine it to mean Infinity then you relegated to the realm of absurdity, because in particle physics when the results are infinite, it is considered incoherent, which signifies that something is missing or the interpretation of the physics involved is insufficient or just wrong! It must be noted ; When dealing on the scale of a singularity, this is the realm of particle physics.
ruben martinez stating that rs/r or r/rs as either way is not the same. Specially if one of the values is zero. You can just switch the variable places just because they seem to be the same. Totally different things. Once again rs is not zero. Calm your mind, look at the equations and stop trying to desesperately discredit others work.
"Physicists are limited by reality": finally some commonsense is introduced into cosmology!
I'm sure that if you made that statement to a physicist they would ask you "Which reality?" ;-)
That girl's hotness sure isnt limited by reality....damn.
please upload 1 or 2 or 3 videos every week with this quality with you are making right now !!
you are rocking guys !!
I liked that at the end. Thank you.
Cool vid. So, how do we build Borg's cube?
Don Solaris you do as you are told, resistance is futile
Compliance is _not_ in my programming.
Don Solaris 😍😍😋😋🤓😞😣😭😭🤯😰😰🤫🤯🤮🤮🤮🤮🤢
Why do you think they’re killing Christians.
Loved the Fight club reference at the end
I'm so single that i make my own singularity :')
Let's work together my friend, we'll demand the liberation of Tibet or else we'll sigularize the planet
SInce the time interval for a stationary object at event horizon - -> 0 ,,one would outlive the entire age of the universe...
He would literally see the future whizzing past by him at incredible rate... upto a point when his 1 instant = 100000000trillion years(effectively infinite)...
Now, how cool is that
lol i was thinking the same thing....that's freakin' awesome! The best thing you can feel before your inevitable death is the universe taking its final breaths right before disapperaing into nothingness
If you draw a Penrose diagram for that physical situation, that's not actually what happens, not all light can catch up to you, so you can't witness infinite future, you do see the time go way faster though, but it ends when the last possible light ray reaches you, and it's a lot less than ''infinite'' future. There is an easy way to see why what you said is not possible, black holes will evaporate before the universe ends, so you can't freeze time in a non-existing event horizon.
yes, but one unfortunate consequence of this would be that all the energy that has ever been emitted in the universe would hit your eye at the same time. Need some serious sunglasses for that event.
2:32 Lmao, he's like okay okay you're taking too much time now hurry it up 😂
Omg this rules. Thanks so much for bringing Kelsey on!!
Immediately bummed to learn she no longer hosts Infinite Series AND the channel was cancelled. 🥺
No way, I got a singularly named after me, how cool?
No you idiot ! It was named after Danny phantom!
Sorry for the insult, it was only used for comedic reasons.
What about sphere in a sphere? Both will have a center of mass in the same position. From my experience such spheres will move freely. So we can't only look at center of mass of an object, we should consider every particle individually. If we do so then we have to consider Pauli exclusion principle which from what I understand won't allow two particles be in the same state in one place and time
I wonder what assumptions of Newton law of gravity are broken by such spheres
Kuba Jurek , This breaks because a hollow shell exerts no gravitational force on things inside it (google "hollow shell theorem").
Not sure what you're saying about spheres within spheres, but Pauli exclusion is not a problem for black holes. Pauli exclusion only prevents identical particles from occupying the same state, but there are always more states available in the same location at higher energy levels. That's why neutron stars, which are held up by the Pauli exclusion principle, will collapse into black holes if enough mass is added to supply the energy to reach those higher energy states. As for what happens inside the event Horizon, we'd need a theory of quantum gravity to talk about that.
Daniel Jensen Yep totally, and black holes don't need infinite mass or energy, no singularities there. The singularity at the centre idea is an incorrect prediction because we don't understand it.
Since the OP mentioned hollow spheres, I thought, what if there isn't anything inside an event horizon, and the mass is actually around the horizon, since nothing ever falls in, as seen by an inertial exterior observer.
Where do you get this lovely background music from?
I'd like to know too!
Artuir82 who are you, to be able to grasp the video well enough to pay attention to the BGM as well!?
Marik Zilberman I've been writing music for 20 years as a hobby, so I'm a bit wired to pick stuff like that out. :)
I can't stand it. It sounds like someone's annoying phone ringtone.
I also really want to know what the first song is! The one from the first two minutes of the episode
Thank you Family that is beautiful, peace and love, Doug:)
Lmaoooooooo!!! Love the Fight Club speech at the end 🥰💖✨
Spiral Staircase
Rhinoceros Beetle
Desolation Row
Fig Tart
Rhinoceros Beetle
Via Dolorosa
Rhinoceros Beetle
Singularity Point
Giotto
Angel
Hydrangea
Rhinoceros Beetle
Singularity Point
Secret Emperor
Do you believe in gravity?
I study in 8 grade I am from I just love these kind of things but these are a bit advanced for me should I watch them?
Harsh Arya of course watch them.
Also don't ask for or follow advice on the internet. Especially RUclips comments 😅🧘🏼♀️🧘🏻♀️
Yes feed your curiosity, but take care when browsing RUclips or the internet in general if you are as young as you say, but you have aged two years since your post so you must have learnt quite a lot . I agree with Samsung in that.
Girl, are you a singularity? Because I feel a strange attraction toward you.
Good line, sounds like something they should've used on The Big Bang Theory.
Don't! You'll get stuck at the event horizon..
when i look at her, my pee pee feels weird. whats wrong with meeee!
Go beyond your imagination !!! Die into it!! Human explanation is grand and intelligent.... You have a human question so you get a human answer ...
We are so sure we EXIST....
very articulate and concise
What is the music for this episode? I wish the artists and song names were annotated... they're wonderful.
It's kinda funny how this channel is annoyingly advanced and the math channel is super trivial.
Jacob Kantor check out mathologer if you want some more interesting math stuff
That's physics in a nutshell
The math channel is also discontinued.
An actual conversation with a friend (after watching this video) :-
Me : So time turns into space and vise versa inside a black hole.
Friend : What? How?
Me : Well..uh....there is this equation...
Friend : ....
Me : I don't remember the equation but uh...it basically predicts faster than light velocities of objects at the event horizon.
Friend : Well, duh, it's a black hole, it even eats up light so...
Me : Well ya and that's why space and time reverse roles beyond the event horizon
Friend : What?...why...and What does that even mean???
Me : YOU ARE FALLING INSIDE A BLACK HOLE, YOU HAVE ONLY ONE INEVITABLE FUTURE....Getting crushed to..
Friend : TO DEATH, YES! BUT WHY WOULD SPACE AND TIME NEED TO REVERSE ROLES FOR THAT??!!
Me : I don't know..this beared Astrophysicist in RUclips told me....
Friend : All scientists have beards...
Me : ...I have to watch that video again but that's how it actually is inside a black hole.
Friend : Oh! Huh.....Black Holes are pretty hardcore I guess.
Physicist is providing the theoretical explanation based on a set of assumptions [X1, X2, X3, X4, ...]. Problem is that no theory is "confirmed" without some set of experiments that can prove one or more assumptions as being correct. Theoretical explanation is probably a non-null percentage hot air.
@@gilian2587 Yes, it is hard to conduct experiments inside a black hole unless you are Matthew McConaughey
(*in PewDiePie voice : then you can just jump right into it)
@@TheDentedHelmet What's funny; and what they didn't mention in this video is the derivation of the Schwarzchild solution. It came from some of the most brittle equations of orbit that exist in the world of physics; Kepler's equations (they are historically useful and interesting -- I have enormous respect for Kepler and Tycho Brahe... however... that doesn't change the fact that the application of those equations of orbit are rather limited). [1] r=r_s; in this context would mean that you literally have an orbit on the Event Horizon; this is after you have already simplified away some "nastiness" by assuming that dr/dt = 0 (you have no radial velocity) and d^2 r/dt^2 = 0 (you have no radial acceleration). So... after deriving the Schwarzchild solution... and after making those assumptions; would you expect to find infinities at r=0? Does it even make sense to try to describe an orbit "on the center of mass for the bloody gravity well"? How would matter even get to r=0; are we assuming that the Pauli Exclusion principle no longer applies for matter in a black hole? Stuff is there; that stuff may be some weird hybrid state between matter and energy; but SOME kind of an exclusion principle would still apply to that stuff, right? In other words; if you are trying to describe physical behavior at (r = r_s, or r = 0); the Schwarzchild Solution is the WRONG MODEL; you gotta go back to the drawing board buddy... nature doesn't have "real" honest to goodness infinities. Nature has very, *very*, VERY large numbers; but infinity doesn't exist... not even for black holes.
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriving_the_Schwarzschild_solution
if they switched roles would it even matter, because space and time wouldnt go anywhere, just invert
I find it a nice reference to the doppeltspalt experiment when no time pass for the photon it means there is not passing back in time for it. Only action and reaction falling to the same moment from it perspective.
The first beautiful mathematician I’ve ever seen
Newtons Law of Gravitation has a point-mass approximation that fails at r close to the radii of the masses. It is not accurate for small r.
Black hole theory is nonfalsifiable. That does not seem to stop string theorists either.
When Di-Electric Acceleration is so high it over throw's Magnetism's ability to keep the so called black hole inside the visible Universe. Mother Nature is not complicated she is more simple than you've ever dreamed imaginable, more simple than 1+2 = 3. Everything is self seeking, pressure mediation, Centrifugal convergence and centripetal divergence. Force and motion inertia & Acceleration Mother Nature is that damn simple. Check Thoria Apophasis on RUclips your brain might explode.
Gm1m2*÷0*=invinite
÷0 is invinite?
Well spotted. It's a (weak) clue that the singularity is not physical.
it's me well, that's simplified (the physicist like to do that) 1/x is trending towards infinity when x is trending towards 0. You still can't divide by 0 but you can see what happens when you get closer to 0 and you can prove that the "dividing-by-smaller-and-smaller-numbers-funktion" has no limit which means it goes on until infinity
does it ? what if we set x = -2 and then -1 and then -1/2 .... and smaller and smaller ? The result is not infinity, but minus infinity.
So whats the real value of the function at x=0 ? Is it infinity or is it minus infinity ?
This means if we have a function and calculate a limes, the direction decides the result and the difference between these 2 results is the maximum discrepancy possible (that's pretty undefined isn't it ?). It's wise to leave this point mathematically undefined as long as there is not a better idea.
Frank Schneider you're absolutely correct, but in the specific case of a black hole forming in theory we have a finite amount of mass that gets compressed in a smaller and smaller space, so that we know the direction and can talk about (theoretical predicted) infinite density.
again, not disagreeing with you in any way, the explanation of limits that i gave above is very wrong
uhli1896
No we really can't because you are using Einstein's general relativity to do so, and this is not correct for calculating this phenomenon, as that's a classical, non-quantized theory and therefore lacks any form of quantum effect that play a decisive role at this level.
This means you apply a formula to a situation where it is not valid, but take the result for reality. Doesn't make , does it ? What we need is a theory of quantum gravity that is capable of describing the situation we have at the center of a black hole. If this (not yet existing) theory would also result in a singularity this could be a reason to take it for real, but with the current approach (applying a formula where it is not valid, neglecting half of all effects) it doesn't make sense.
Make levels on this channel, or different channels.
A low level, so we can understand the basics, then a medium level, and then one where you full on explain current theories, somewhat more in depth than here.
This way you want have to baby us for 10 minutes when you reach something complicated in the video- which happens pretty much all the time.
1:56 Oh Kelsey is here! Love Kelsey. Her explanation is always so clear.
Hopefully one day I'll be able to understand most of the content on this channel...