I like how clean the derivation for the Schwarzschild radius is. Neither escape velocity nor Schwarzschild radius were foreign concepts to me, but I had never realized how closely related they are.
Here's what's crazy... His answer is right but his derivation is wrong... He used newton's laws to talk about an Einstein concept. Newton's laws don't work nearb blackholes because they make incorrect assumptions about what time and space are and a black hole just makes that obvious. There is no escape velocity at a blackhole's event horizon not because of velocity but because the event horizon breaks causality.
@@misteratoz Michell noticed this in the 18th century, long before GR and Swarzschild. This derivation is sort of a pre-history of black holes. But of course, it's not Swarzschild.
This guy seems to really know his stuff and apparently explained it in a very methodical and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I didn’t grasp any of it. I’m glad people like him know what’s going on so I don’t have to.
He doesn’t. As a physicist with my doctorate in astrology i graduated magnum cum laude from the university of Denmarkia in Denmark. I know this is all pseudoscience. Not mentioning that stars form in clusters that allow you to predict the future is intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this behavior. You must be a Leo.
The embedding diagram was completely new to me and blew my mind. I had never realized that length contraction makes the path through the diameter even shorter than it normally is relative to that around the semi-circle. Even more fascinating was it's connection to the escape velocity. This seems both a very interesting and promising channel in many ways, so I'll subscribe.
This does a really good job illustrating and explaining why the ISCO exists and what happens in and out of it. I've heard of the concept but never truly grasped the mechanisms for why. Showing the contracting ring stay mostly the same while the distance to the singularity rapidly changes is auper intuitive.
There's this concept in orbital mechanics called a "hyperbolic trajectory", which happens when your energy is too high to stay in an orbit. Basically if you start off far from a celestial object, you can get extremely close, and as long as nothing slows you down and you don't collide with the object, you'll still have way too much energy to stick around and leave. This doesn't work for a black hole within a certain distance, however, because iirc, if you get close enough, the warped space will adjust your trajectory so you get closer to the center regardless
I've heard before the idea of a tethered orbit operating outside of ISCO as a way of "generating" energy, but I get the feeling a lot of ideas centered around black holes would be doomed to be crunched.
Phased matter which primarily exists in another dimension but can physically interact with ours should be able to function as a skeletal structure around a black hole, maybe even inside it.
Only if the black hole spins. You can then theoretically extract some of the angular momentum - the black hole slows down it’s spin but spits out the matter you threw in with more energy than it originally had. But you have to get everything right and it’s probably impossible from an engineering point of view to avoid just being obliterated.
You made me sit through an entire math lesson and managed to not only make it interesting, but provide examples of changing one variable and how it changes the system. You deserve more followers!
Not a bad video for explaining things to a layperson. One issue I have is with the description of the ratio between circumference and radius. The radius to a black hole is generally defined by the circumference, because radial distance itself ceases to have any meaning when you get close to a black hole, because of the gravitational stretching of spacetime in that direction.
Holy heck, I actually finally understand quasars now! It's to do with ISCO line and the energy stuff! Amazing video, may have to re-watch to get this info stuck in my head lel
I remember in the game The Outer Worlds, fantastic space game btw. I was trying to get to the sun and orbit really close. But I just couldn't do it. I needed to use my engine to even allow me to get even close to any kind of stable orbit really close to the sun. This video explains to me why I couldn't get there. Thank you for explaining that.
Thats interesting. I was led to believe its relatively easy to go into orbit around a black hole if you stay outside the event horizon. I like the hands analogy.
3:51 is simply wrong. Black holes are not places where the rules and axioms of the universe break. The only things that break are our human rules and axioms. You might dismiss this as just a semantic argument, but it's just as wrong as when students say, "but I was only one decimal place off..." Language matters, especially in science communication, because sloppiness with language is what gives the anti-science community more ammunition than they should have. Please be as careful with your language as you are with your math.
Really interesting and well produced video. I was a bit surprised when the term centrifugal force was used. My understanding is the its the bodies inertia and velocity that keeps it in orbit, balanced by the centripetal force exerted from the orbited body. No centrifugal force involved.
It sounded odd because in physics centrifugal force is... well, it isn't. It's more of a layman's term to simplify centripetal acceleration. As you move in a circle at a constant rotational velocity the force vectors add up to equal a positive acceleration directly toward the center of the circle. (Or something like that, my last physics class was like 10yrs ago). As you accelerate in any direction your inertia resists the movement, think sinking into your car seat as you gun it, giving the FALSE impression that there is a force pushing you back. The only REAL force is the seat pushing forward. When you add gravity it gets weird because while gravity is calculable it breaks basic physics. ALL forces in physics are positive. They all push. On the maths side it's easy to add a negative sign to balance the equation, but in physics there's no such thing as pulling.
@@bdemaree gravity only pulls (like tension in centripetal force problems), electromagnetism can both push and pull depending on what's being acted on. Presenting gravity as a pushing force in this video let me immediately know this guy doesn't really grasp what he's trying to talk about
I like this channel because mathematically it doesn’t pull punches and assumes the listener has had High school physics and at least remembers a bit of it. While this isn’t as suitable to a “general audience”, this is amazing for people who like to watch these sorts of Astronomy and Physics videos for fun on occasion. It also never goes deep into it as to be too niche, but more like a professor explaining mathematics using conceptual understanding, which always makes learning easier in a classroom setting. I like this channel a lot!
An interesting video, I didn't know the mathematics behind it. Though vivid, the gravitational hands metaphor irks me still; people might yet think of it as a force (that pulls you down). You could have used the ball example instead to illustrate clearly the illusory force of gravity, i. e. actually the constant falling of mass towards other gravicenters like in earth. This would also have helped prepare for the usually not circular effect on a given object; both while orbiting and in it's form, like the ovoid earth.
you did the greatest explanation of these concepts, starts with the closest to us, using simple mathematical methods, I've never been this enlightened to these concepts, thank you
It literally took me a few seconds to decide that I'm subscribing. Usually I watch the video then decide but this is so good I just had to subscribe then watch
Interstellar assumes a rapidly spinning black hole spinning at over 99% of the speed of light -- unlikely, but not physically impossible. The spin drags along space itself at nearly the speed of light and makes close stable orbits possible.
@@DavidJao Yeah, which is dumb. Same as trying to inhabit a planet that’s orbiting a neutron star, then a black hole. The first would be a frozen wasteland, the second would be inhospitable due to radiation. And I’m not even getting into falling into a black hole then getting out somehow, or turning the entire planet into thousands of O’Neil cylinders within a few decades, and lots of other dumb crap that movie somehow gets away with…
@@andye5724 It’s a “sci-fi” film, yeah, but it was touted as being backed by real scientists/physicists and scientifically accurate by countless news articles and commenters.
Once past the event horizon, that place where you once were is now not a place, but a time: your past. The singularity is also not a place, but a time, your one and only unchangeable future. You could no more escape it than you could escape 'next Tuesday' elsewhere. This may be the most astounding aspect of a black hole.
That's how mathematics works. You gotta balance the equation even if it means applying numbers to impossible imaginary things that break physics. Then the physicists take the balanced equation and try to work out what non voodoo explination there is for the magical negative sign. That's where curved space time came from. Gravity CAN'T pull. There's no such thing as pulling in physics.
Please, PLEASE enlighten me if I am mistaken, but my high school physics teacher drilled into us that "centrifecal" (or "centrephical") is the force of poop in motion in a circular path, while "centripetal" force is the force acted on a body in a circular path. Unless y'all mean centrifugal force, but that was DEFINITELY not what was said.
Idea for scanning a black hole. The probe is mostly a large device with a bunch of sensors, with a little rocket laying on the side. As the probe orbits closer and closer to the event horizon, the little rocket gets extended away from the main unit by a long stick. Once the main body is completely past the event horizon, the rocket on a stick breaks off of the stick and slingshots away with its payload: a quantum computer paired with one on the main probe. Since paired quantum particles transmit intel to each other instantaneously, speed of light be damned, we’ll effectively have a direct line of communication to the weirdest place in astrophysics! Well, I guess that you could achieve the same results by dropping a quantum computer straight down the hatch, completely bypassing the need of something to survive the star-hot accretion disc that an orbiting device would have to enter twice per cycle (or stay in permanently if you’re weird), but I want science to make a rocket on a stick, so bite me.
In short: you can orbit blackholes, because they spin and produce drag frames. First "original" theoretical blackholes did not spin. Thus, the whole idea of the video is wrong.
I had two problems with this video. 1. Centrifugal force doesn't exist in physics. It's a hand wave simplification of not really too complicated idea. 2. Our entire galaxy orbits a black hole.
About 03:55: The rules and axioms of the universe do not break or cease to work inside a black hole. They cease to work at r=0 since the so-called SCHWARZSCHILD metric inevitably becomes singular (there is a coordinate singularity at the event horizon in original SCHWARZSCHILD coordinates but that can be removed by an apt coordinate transformation).
I think when they labeled them a hole, they screwed up, and the word hole gives people the wrong idea of what it is. I think its really a just like a sun, basically another ball of gas but the gravity is so intense that light really can't escape so it looks black. Because it looks black, people get this idea that it like a hole, as if you could really fly through it. Now I'm not saying you can't fly through it, I think you might be able to fly through it if your speed is faster than the gravity. Now with that said, imagine a potato flying through a tube. Same concept, If you could calculate the actual center of the black ball (which I think is more appropriate term that hole) when you fly at the center of the black ball, and you stay on course to the center of the black ball, then the gravity of the black ball will push on your spacecraft and fling you out the other side, essentially become a tool for faster than light travel.
Really happy you described gravity as an illusionary push generated by curved space. Too many people describe gravity as a pull, and there is no such thing as pulling in physics.
What happens when two positive charges are placed next to one another? What happens when two un-charged particles are placed next to one another? In the first case they push away, in the second case they pull together
@@jeffyboyreloaded Wrong. There is no such thing as pulling. They are pushed together. If two particles have no charge, they are pushed together by gravity alone.
From the frame of reference of someone falling into a black hole who releases two objects into free-fall next to themselves and observes themselves and the two objects moving closer together - does the rate of that attraction differ from the rate one would observe due to mutual gravitational pull between the objects in otherwise "flat" and empty space?
Great video. But I think I disagree with the analogy of "Escape Velocity = c", which is conflating a Newtonian concept with Gen. Rel. Since you are showing a grav potential equation, it might be more useful to use the full one in the Schwartzchild Solution: V ~ -1/r + 1/r^2 - 1/r^3 The first two are Newtonian gravity and centrifugal, and the third is unique to GR and causes the ISCO, weird orbits, precession, etc. There's a great treatment here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Relation_to_Newtonian_physics Again, great video!
The title is misleading: You _can_ stably orbit a black hole at a distance equal to or greater than ISCO. If the black hole is rotating (which most will), you can orbit even closer to them than the 6 SCHWARZSCHILD radii mentioned here.
You have to orbit in the time frame you are in. It’s not about speed. It’s about how long it takes to orbit in the space you are occupying. In other words space itself is orbiting and you have to match the movement of the space your in
We can calculate the mass of a proton as approximately (1g / (avogadro's number)). We notice that every proton has Schwarzchild Radius of: * (1g / (avogadro's number)) * 2*G / c^2 * = 2.46628585e-54 meters And that's pretty small. Still though, in theory, every proton might have a really tiny "hole" in its center. So, our universe is full of holes (or balloons).
E=constant? But the ball thrown in the air with a higher speed than the escape velocity might in theory break loose of Earth's gravity, but in the trajectory before it enters space, it will loose speed due to friction with the atmosphere. So E=not constant. You need E to 'keep' constant, like a rocket motor that keeps on burning at full throttle to keep the speed at escape velocity until you reach space, where there is no more friction.
5:20 Hmm wouldn't that mean that in a gravitational field, we not only have tidal forces trying to stretch an object longitudinally, but also lateral forces that try to compress the object along its transverse axis? 🤔
Fun fact, the German name "Schwarzschild" translates as "black shield", which is kinda fitting for the radius that got named after the guy.
He named it wrong in the video. Its not Schwarz-Child... Its Schwarzschild...
"Shvarts-shillt"
@@hurnidan he's an American, what do you expect. Bet he can't properly pronounce gestalt either
@@512TheWolf512 Cut him some slack, pronouncing different languages is hard.
Schwartz? Yogurt is the keeper of the Schwartz..
I like how clean the derivation for the Schwarzschild radius is. Neither escape velocity nor Schwarzschild radius were foreign concepts to me, but I had never realized how closely related they are.
Here's what's crazy... His answer is right but his derivation is wrong... He used newton's laws to talk about an Einstein concept. Newton's laws don't work nearb blackholes because they make incorrect assumptions about what time and space are and a black hole just makes that obvious. There is no escape velocity at a blackhole's event horizon not because of velocity but because the event horizon breaks causality.
@@misteratoz well put. Unfortunately you can't simply plug a speed of light into a classical equation of motion, and just jump into relativity...
@@misteratoz Michell noticed this in the 18th century, long before GR and Swarzschild. This derivation is sort of a pre-history of black holes. But of course, it's not Swarzschild.
Look at all these experts here that got their degrees from youtube University
@@farazahmed7 what place did you get your degree from?
This guy seems to really know his stuff and apparently explained it in a very methodical and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I didn’t grasp any of it. I’m glad people like him know what’s going on so I don’t have to.
Why do i relate to this so much.
Gravity sucks
That's cos its freemasongibberish.
He doesn’t. As a physicist with my doctorate in astrology i graduated magnum cum laude from the university of Denmarkia in Denmark. I know this is all pseudoscience. Not mentioning that stars form in clusters that allow you to predict the future is intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this behavior. You must be a Leo.
@@Mynipplesmychoice 😂😂😂
"We freeze time & look at our balls energy"
Me: snickers
Me too.
lol
same lol im childish
Wish i could like this twice lol
We never stop being children
“You cannot orbit around black holes “
Says the dude who is apparently orbiting around a black hole 🕳
So awesome!
Yup everything in galaxy is orbiting around the central black hole
@@cyberguroo Theorized, but it could also be condensed dark matter. We just don't know.
Prove black holes even exist
@@recreant359 We have mathematics for that. And if that's not enough for you, we have a photo. They exist. 😐
The embedding diagram was completely new to me and blew my mind. I had never realized that length contraction makes the path through the diameter even shorter than it normally is relative to that around the semi-circle. Even more fascinating was it's connection to the escape velocity.
This seems both a very interesting and promising channel in many ways, so I'll subscribe.
This does a really good job illustrating and explaining why the ISCO exists and what happens in and out of it. I've heard of the concept but never truly grasped the mechanisms for why. Showing the contracting ring stay mostly the same while the distance to the singularity rapidly changes is auper intuitive.
There's this concept in orbital mechanics called a "hyperbolic trajectory", which happens when your energy is too high to stay in an orbit. Basically if you start off far from a celestial object, you can get extremely close, and as long as nothing slows you down and you don't collide with the object, you'll still have way too much energy to stick around and leave. This doesn't work for a black hole within a certain distance, however, because iirc, if you get close enough, the warped space will adjust your trajectory so you get closer to the center regardless
I've heard before the idea of a tethered orbit operating outside of ISCO as a way of "generating" energy, but I get the feeling a lot of ideas centered around black holes would be doomed to be crunched.
....odd to see you here.
yeah because we don't really understand them
Phased matter which primarily exists in another dimension but can physically interact with ours should be able to function as a skeletal structure around a black hole, maybe even inside it.
No
Only if the black hole spins. You can then theoretically extract some of the angular momentum - the black hole slows down it’s spin but spits out the matter you threw in with more energy than it originally had. But you have to get everything right and it’s probably impossible from an engineering point of view to avoid just being obliterated.
You made me sit through an entire math lesson and managed to not only make it interesting, but provide examples of changing one variable and how it changes the system. You deserve more followers!
The algorithm hit you bro. Keep up the good content and you're hitting a million subs in a year.
Arghahuhh! Ah that's hot! That's hot!
Just learning about gravity and kinetic energy in physics its so cool how these equations are derived and connected to eachother
The fact that black holes exist is absolutely mind bending
Don’t you mean ‘space bending’?
@Bob Smith both. Space-time bending
The elegance and simplicity of your explanations are hugely impressive. Thank you so much.
Not a bad video for explaining things to a layperson. One issue I have is with the description of the ratio between circumference and radius. The radius to a black hole is generally defined by the circumference, because radial distance itself ceases to have any meaning when you get close to a black hole, because of the gravitational stretching of spacetime in that direction.
The music in this one is great
This was so brilliant. Keep making more videos please!!
you are one of my favorite.
You can orbit a black hole if it is spinning. Kip thorne illustrates this perfectly.
Holy heck, I actually finally understand quasars now! It's to do with ISCO line and the energy stuff!
Amazing video, may have to re-watch to get this info stuck in my head lel
If you was about to think I was going to sit through this disguised physics lesson then you miscalculated the Kinetic energy of THESE HANDS
You got it wrong. The circumference over radius ratio is SMALLER than 2pi in the Schwarzschild metric, not larger.
I remember in the game The Outer Worlds, fantastic space game btw. I was trying to get to the sun and orbit really close. But I just couldn't do it. I needed to use my engine to even allow me to get even close to any kind of stable orbit really close to the sun. This video explains to me why I couldn't get there. Thank you for explaining that.
Its my favourite game
Nice to know I will remember this the next time I'm passing a black hole
Thats interesting. I was led to believe its relatively easy to go into orbit around a black hole if you stay outside the event horizon. I like the hands analogy.
3:51 is simply wrong. Black holes are not places where the rules and axioms of the universe break. The only things that break are our human rules and axioms. You might dismiss this as just a semantic argument, but it's just as wrong as when students say, "but I was only one decimal place off..." Language matters, especially in science communication, because sloppiness with language is what gives the anti-science community more ammunition than they should have. Please be as careful with your language as you are with your math.
Clear and precise. Great concepts.
Really interesting and well produced video. I was a bit surprised when the term centrifugal force was used. My understanding is the its the bodies inertia and velocity that keeps it in orbit, balanced by the centripetal force exerted from the orbited body. No centrifugal force involved.
It sounded odd because in physics centrifugal force is... well, it isn't. It's more of a layman's term to simplify centripetal acceleration. As you move in a circle at a constant rotational velocity the force vectors add up to equal a positive acceleration directly toward the center of the circle. (Or something like that, my last physics class was like 10yrs ago). As you accelerate in any direction your inertia resists the movement, think sinking into your car seat as you gun it, giving the FALSE impression that there is a force pushing you back. The only REAL force is the seat pushing forward. When you add gravity it gets weird because while gravity is calculable it breaks basic physics. ALL forces in physics are positive. They all push. On the maths side it's easy to add a negative sign to balance the equation, but in physics there's no such thing as pulling.
@@bdemaree gravity only pulls (like tension in centripetal force problems), electromagnetism can both push and pull depending on what's being acted on.
Presenting gravity as a pushing force in this video let me immediately know this guy doesn't really grasp what he's trying to talk about
I love finding small(ish) channels like this that should definitely have more subs.
"we freeze time and look at our balls energy." LOL classic
Yup, I sighed as well as I tried to not think that way. Nope, I thought that way.
8:40 holy shit the quality and details of this video is astounding, the black hole bent the light of the ship away
Ikr
I like this channel because mathematically it doesn’t pull punches and assumes the listener has had High school physics and at least remembers a bit of it. While this isn’t as suitable to a “general audience”, this is amazing for people who like to watch these sorts of Astronomy and Physics videos for fun on occasion. It also never goes deep into it as to be too niche, but more like a professor explaining mathematics using conceptual understanding, which always makes learning easier in a classroom setting. I like this channel a lot!
My ball's final trajectory is on a collision course with Joe's face.
So happy I found this channel
An interesting video, I didn't know the mathematics behind it.
Though vivid, the gravitational hands metaphor irks me still; people might yet think of it as a force (that pulls you down).
You could have used the ball example instead to illustrate clearly the illusory force of gravity, i. e. actually the constant falling of mass towards other gravicenters like in earth. This would also have helped prepare for the usually not circular effect on a given object; both while orbiting and in it's form, like the ovoid earth.
I literally asked myself this very question just a few days ago. Pretty nice to have this video recommended
you did the greatest explanation of these concepts, starts with the closest to us, using simple mathematical methods, I've never been this enlightened to these concepts, thank you
Math and science are not my things. I'm proud to say I actually followed this video! Awesome 👌🏾👏🏾👍🏾 This actually made sense to me.
-"You cannot orbit near Blackholes"
-We are not doing it right now?
-Yes... I mean very near
-Ok
the way of explaining gravity with hands was gold.
It literally took me a few seconds to decide that I'm subscribing. Usually I watch the video then decide but this is so good I just had to subscribe then watch
And this is why the entire 2nd and 3rd act of “Interstellar” doesn’t make any sense 😂
Interstellar assumes a rapidly spinning black hole spinning at over 99% of the speed of light -- unlikely, but not physically impossible. The spin drags along space itself at nearly the speed of light and makes close stable orbits possible.
@@DavidJao Yeah, which is dumb. Same as trying to inhabit a planet that’s orbiting a neutron star, then a black hole. The first would be a frozen wasteland, the second would be inhospitable due to radiation.
And I’m not even getting into falling into a black hole then getting out somehow, or turning the entire planet into thousands of O’Neil cylinders within a few decades, and lots of other dumb crap that movie somehow gets away with…
@@jeffw8218 its.. its.. a sci-fi movie >_>. I must admit tho the soundtrack was good U_U.
@@andye5724 It’s a “sci-fi” film, yeah, but it was touted as being backed by real scientists/physicists and scientifically accurate by countless news articles and commenters.
@@jeffw8218only the time dilation part is where they claimed to be accurate,but i could be wrong
Once past the event horizon, that place where you once were is now not a place, but a time: your past. The singularity is also not a place, but a time, your one and only unchangeable future. You could no more escape it than you could escape 'next Tuesday' elsewhere. This may be the most astounding aspect of a black hole.
Best recommendation by RUclips 👍❤️
This conversation is like fresh air. Em happy they came to common ground.
Let’s think about things in terms of pure mathematics.
So there are these invisible hands…
That's how mathematics works. You gotta balance the equation even if it means applying numbers to impossible imaginary things that break physics. Then the physicists take the balanced equation and try to work out what non voodoo explination there is for the magical negative sign. That's where curved space time came from. Gravity CAN'T pull. There's no such thing as pulling in physics.
amazing production quality of video!
and i wish you would include information outside the radius of 'rockefeller science' ;)
"On earth we always have invisible hands holding us down" ah yes the invisible guiding hand of the free market, my favorite oppressor
Excellent content
This channel should have more subs!
Please, PLEASE enlighten me if I am mistaken, but my high school physics teacher drilled into us that "centrifecal" (or "centrephical") is the force of poop in motion in a circular path, while "centripetal" force is the force acted on a body in a circular path. Unless y'all mean centrifugal force, but that was DEFINITELY not what was said.
Idea for scanning a black hole. The probe is mostly a large device with a bunch of sensors, with a little rocket laying on the side. As the probe orbits closer and closer to the event horizon, the little rocket gets extended away from the main unit by a long stick. Once the main body is completely past the event horizon, the rocket on a stick breaks off of the stick and slingshots away with its payload: a quantum computer paired with one on the main probe. Since paired quantum particles transmit intel to each other instantaneously, speed of light be damned, we’ll effectively have a direct line of communication to the weirdest place in astrophysics! Well, I guess that you could achieve the same results by dropping a quantum computer straight down the hatch, completely bypassing the need of something to survive the star-hot accretion disc that an orbiting device would have to enter twice per cycle (or stay in permanently if you’re weird), but I want science to make a rocket on a stick, so bite me.
Keep making black hole and interesting space content and I'll keep liking
In short: you can orbit blackholes, because they spin and produce drag frames. First "original" theoretical blackholes did not spin. Thus, the whole idea of the video is wrong.
I had two problems with this video.
1. Centrifugal force doesn't exist in physics. It's a hand wave simplification of not really too complicated idea.
2. Our entire galaxy orbits a black hole.
He is saying tha you cant orbit NEAR ( less than 3 swartchild radius ) if you are farther than 3 SR orbits are normal.
Awesome presentation, along with the newest black hole video. I'd be surprised if this channel doesn't blow up big time. More space content?
You called the guy Schwarzchild. He is called Schwarzschild though.
Excellent video. I love black holes. Been obsessed with them since I was 11 years old. Earned a sub.
if i throw a ball up with the perfect velocity so that it just cancles out at some point?
Another banger of a video, your gonna blow up this year im feelin it
In regards to two balls falling down and towards each other. Wouldn't you (observer) shrink as well, so you still won't be able to tell?
Nice work you are quite underrated, a nice inspiration to start to get back in to making videos again.
Great video! But in 3:44 it‘s schwarzschild and not schwarzchild
That was a very comprehensible way of understanding the Schwartzchild radius.
It's Schwarzschild.
Schwarz-Schild 🤦🏻♂️ Not child
Where do you get the music you use in the background? Its really good
About 03:55: The rules and axioms of the universe do not break or cease to work inside a black hole.
They cease to work at r=0 since the so-called SCHWARZSCHILD metric inevitably becomes singular (there is a coordinate singularity at the event horizon in original SCHWARZSCHILD coordinates but that can be removed by an apt coordinate transformation).
I think when they labeled them a hole, they screwed up, and the word hole gives people the wrong idea of what it is. I think its really a just like a sun, basically another ball of gas but the gravity is so intense that light really can't escape so it looks black. Because it looks black, people get this idea that it like a hole, as if you could really fly through it. Now I'm not saying you can't fly through it, I think you might be able to fly through it if your speed is faster than the gravity. Now with that said, imagine a potato flying through a tube. Same concept, If you could calculate the actual center of the black ball (which I think is more appropriate term that hole) when you fly at the center of the black ball, and you stay on course to the center of the black ball, then the gravity of the black ball will push on your spacecraft and fling you out the other side, essentially become a tool for faster than light travel.
Really happy you described gravity as an illusionary push generated by curved space. Too many people describe gravity as a pull, and there is no such thing as pulling in physics.
What happens when two positive charges are placed next to one another?
What happens when two un-charged particles are placed next to one another?
In the first case they push away, in the second case they pull together
@@jeffyboyreloaded Wrong. There is no such thing as pulling. They are pushed together.
If two particles have no charge, they are pushed together by gravity alone.
My dad described a black hole not as an object but rather as a place where someone used a hole-punch on the universe and its laws.
Doesn't the gravity formula have R^2 not just R?
and Schwarzschild is spelled Schwarzschild
Black holes and gamma ray bursts are terrifying.
4:00 i like to think of it as what we THINK is the simulation code breaking down. Our equations might be missing something lol
Do a video on 'gravitational binding energy'.
Actually, the image at 3:56 seems wrong, lines should converge to the center of the red disk instead of surrounding it.
From the frame of reference of someone falling into a black hole who releases two objects into free-fall next to themselves and observes themselves and the two objects moving closer together - does the rate of that attraction differ from the rate one would observe due to mutual gravitational pull between the objects in otherwise "flat" and empty space?
Great video. But I think I disagree with the analogy of "Escape Velocity = c", which is conflating a Newtonian concept with Gen. Rel. Since you are showing a grav potential equation, it might be more useful to use the full one in the Schwartzchild Solution:
V ~ -1/r + 1/r^2 - 1/r^3
The first two are Newtonian gravity and centrifugal, and the third is unique to GR and causes the ISCO, weird orbits, precession, etc.
There's a great treatment here
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Relation_to_Newtonian_physics
Again, great video!
I don't know where you came from, but thanks. Those are incredibly well made and informative videos.
Brilliant explanation and illustration - thank you!
The title is misleading: You _can_ stably orbit a black hole at a distance equal to or greater than ISCO.
If the black hole is rotating (which most will), you can orbit even closer to them than the 6 SCHWARZSCHILD radii mentioned here.
Great man..... 😍 😍
Damn, there go my Plans for the next weekend
"Look at our balls energy"
Uh huh
The channel name got me after i read the video title
This was great, but who designed that spaceship model i just wanna talk
Can you dive straight in a black hole? or is taking the scenic route around the drain required?
This will be a good topic while having a beer with friends who loves this kind of stuffs.
You have to orbit in the time frame you are in. It’s not about speed. It’s about how long it takes to orbit in the space you are occupying. In other words space itself is orbiting and you have to match the movement of the space your in
We can calculate the mass of a proton as approximately (1g / (avogadro's number)).
We notice that every proton has Schwarzchild Radius of:
* (1g / (avogadro's number)) * 2*G / c^2
* = 2.46628585e-54 meters
And that's pretty small. Still though, in theory, every proton might have a really tiny "hole" in its center. So, our universe is full of holes (or balloons).
Does this mean that you can not passively fall into the blackhole? And essentially, only energy can fall in, matter can not?
Love this channel
E=constant? But the ball thrown in the air with a higher speed than the escape velocity might in theory break loose of Earth's gravity, but in the trajectory before it enters space, it will loose speed due to friction with the atmosphere. So E=not constant. You need E to 'keep' constant, like a rocket motor that keeps on burning at full throttle to keep the speed at escape velocity until you reach space, where there is no more friction.
No idea what this video was about but cool stuff broski
Everyone:
Hmmm this is interesting.
Me:
DEEZ HANDS
Excellent explanations! In 180 seconds you covered the gist of gravitation, escape velocity, and conservation of energy. Very impressive
5:20 Hmm wouldn't that mean that in a gravitational field, we not only have tidal forces trying to stretch an object longitudinally, but also lateral forces that try to compress the object along its transverse axis? 🤔
Yeah, it wouldn't get pulled apart before it got crushed horizontally.
Black holes like "You about to get these hands"
3:36 I remembered it to be the "Schwarzschild" radius... note the "s". There's no child in that name, but a germand sign/ shield
I understand but the idea that explaining it mathematically is hilarious
I don't get how a BH gets bigger... if the photon sphere is basically a limit, how things fall further?
so its getting bigger because the light gets sucked in earlier because of more mass
I like how formula were derived from mgh.
How does this affect galaxies that orbit black holes?