🌌 What's Inside a Black Hole? If singularities might not exist, what do you think is at the center of a black hole? If black holes don't have singularities, could we potentially travel through them? Where do you think they might lead? Share your cosmic theories! 👽 Don't forget to like, subscribe, and ring that bell for more space mysteries! 🔔
Singularities have always been primarily accepted as being a quirk of the math, and not part of physical reality. Matter in the universe cannot exist without dimension, we just don't know what states of matter look like inside a black hole. Perhaps electromagnetism and the weak force recombine in matter with a density that is difficult to fathom, and properties that are only speculative. When we have a complete understanding of the quantum effects under such a large gravitational force we will know what matter looks like in those little toroidal objects. And we'll probably know a great deal more besides. Singularities are like dark matter, it's just a receptacle where you dump all the problems in your theory until a later date when you know what's actually going on there.
Woah, mind blown! Singularities are like the black holes of theories, sucking in all the unanswered questions. Can't wait for the day when we finally unravel their secrets and go, "Aha, so that's what's going on in there!"
You misunderstand the speed of light limit. The limit is only for objects within space and time. Space and Time themselves can move at any speed, this is why regions far away from us are expanding faster than light.
Ah, you are right. I listened to it again, and he said, "Here, spacetime itself moves faster than the speed of light.". Although yes, I actually kind of explain and use that phenomenon as an example in the video, with space expanding faster than the speed of light between two objects. What I thought he meant was that matter that entered the black hole would be accelerated faster than the speed of light. But is it possible for objects that have mass to reach or go faster than the speed of light? That's what I had in mind at that moment. Thanks for catching that!
Black holes exist we have observation evidence of that. Singularities may not exist. That's my takeaway. And I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around infinity existing in a singularity, so its nice to know some really smart people have that same reaction.
Absolutely! It's fascinating how the concept of black holes challenges our understanding of the universe. The fact that singularities may not exist opens up new possibilities and theories to explore. It's also critical that theories don't become religions to the point where you can't question them any longer. Questioning everything is how new insights can be discovered.
If you ask me, arguing that singularities don't exist in reality is a very unscientific stance. Our best equations that predict how the universe work predict that singularities exist. We do know those equations are not complete yet and break down when values get too high (for example in the centre of a black hole) which is why our equations start to spit out the value infinity - but to argue that singularities don't exist on the basis that we don't have a complete understanding of the physical laws that dictate how the universe work is just foolish unless you have access to a more complete equation or equations that predicts how the universe works more accurately than the laws of general and special relativity currently do and does not predict black holes. It could be that once we discover the most accurate possible equation that describes how the universe works that it no longer predicts singularities - but the only way to find that out is to discover that more accurate equation and to assert that singularities don't exist before that point is just not a position based in science. I get why Einstein didn't believe in singularities in nature - it wasn't that he thought his equations did not predict them, he knew they did when he was shown the math. It was his argument that the physical conditions that would allow a singularity to form using his equations were not conditions that existed in nature, and that therefore there were no singularities out there despite the fact his equations could be pushed to the point where one would be produced on paper. He thought they didn't exist for the same reason physicists today tend to think white holes don't exist in nature - nobody has shown any natural conditions that exist in the universe which could produce them. If he was alive today, he'd absolutely believe in them, because there is now math to show how under naturally occurring conditions his equations would predict a singularity. As for the whole speed of light thing, the reason that it's not possible to exceed the speed of light is basically because E = mc². Adding energy to something by accelerating it through space also adds mass to it, and the more mass there is the more energy is required to accelerate it even further, meaning it becomes even more massive and requires even more energy to accelerate even faster and so on and so forth. If you try change the value of E to higher than is required to reach the speed of light, the equation breaks because E = mc² can't be true if E is as high or higher than mc². I'd also say that it's highly unlikely we discover that more accurate laws of physics would allow faster than light travel for something with mass - there is a finite amount of energy we can get our hands on, and we already know it's not enough to accelerate anything to the speed of light.
@StreakyBaconMan Thanks for the insightful thoughts! I agree that dismissing singularities entirely is not scientifically justified based on our current theories. As you said, future theories may change things, but for now singularities do seem mathematically unavoidable under extreme gravity. I think Einstein's skepticism came from a good place scientifically, even if he may have been proven wrong by modern evidence of black holes. It will be fascinating to see if a more complete theory of quantum gravity changes the picture further. Finding the link between general relativity and the quantum world might end up bringing about ground-breaking insights to the universe like never before. I really enjoyed your detailed explanation of why it's essentially impossible to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light. The relationship between energy, mass, and velocity that you laid out illustrates perfectly why c is likely an absolute speed limit. Great commentary! I appreciate you sharing your perspective!
@StreakyBaconMan By the way, why do you think this debate is still raging within some circles? Even to the point where people like Roy Kerr, who are well established in science and mathematics, are putting out papers that argue that singularities do not exist in the physical world? Mainly due to the breakdown in math, with "infinity" results, right? Pointing to still missing a big piece of the answer.
@@DonMecca Part of the problem is people will latch onto someone like Roy Kerr who may appear to be supporting their unscientific belief even if he's not in reality and what he's saying is just too complicated for them to actually understand. Roy Kerr has never argued that singularities don't exist, just that it has not been proved that a singularity is inevitable when an event horizon forms around a collapsing star. He doesn't say that a singularity doesn't form or that they don't exist in nature, just that they are not inevitable as some people thought the equations showed. If I am honest I hit the limits of my understanding when I start trying to look into WHY Roy Kerr doesn't think a singularity is inevitable, but essentially it appears like he has found a way with the equations to make a black hole with an event horizon, but not have a singularity at it's core and essentially he's arguing that his explanation is just as likely as the singularity explanation for what is at the centre of a black hole. So even if we were to adopt the position of Roy Kerr, it doesn't mean we'd believe singularities are impossible in nature - just that it's one of at least two possible explanations for what is at the centre of a black hole.
@StreakyBaconMan You make a fair point. While singularities remain theoretically possible based on our current understanding, we can't rule out alternatives like Kerr's theory until we have a complete theory of quantum gravity. The debate continues because there are still open questions, but reasonable minds can disagree.
Wrong, most physicists don't believe singularities are anything other than the mathematics of an incomplete theory, they don't actually think they are physical objects. If you think it's just Kerr, you simply have a giant gap in your understanding of the study of black holes. The singularity in all real black holes is at least a toroid with non-zero dimension. But they have volume as well. We just haven't come up with a more complete theory of quantum gravity yet that would allow us to complete general relativity for objects under those conditions. Do you think large black holes and small black holes have the same dimensions? Of course not. Neither do their singularities.
@trunzlerclement3227 lol, one can only dream of such a possibility one day. The master key to the universe. The admin passcode to the programming the universe.
Singularities don’t make sense. I have tried for years to make it make sense, and I can’t do it. They probably are not as described. A black hole singularity is probably a 3D structure which shares a single point in time. Thus it is both a singularity, but also a real 3D object. Just all parts of the volume is effectively the same place. There is no such thing as up or down, no left or right, no forward or backwards. Everything is just the same: Maximum Density.
It's a 3D object and most physicists believe so too. Only the lay public has latched onto the mathematical singularity because they don't know the rest of the story.
Dude, I feel you! Singularities are like the ultimate mind-benders. It's like trying to wrap your head around the concept of infinity or the idea that time can bend and twist. But hey, keep pushing those brain cells, and who knows, maybe you'll crack the code and become the next Einstein! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's always refreshing to hear different perspectives on complex topics like singularities. It's this kind of engagement and curiosity that makes our scientific community thrive. Keep questioning and exploring, and who knows, you might stumble upon a breakthrough!
@@DonMecca Well, I am no Einstein. But I ain’t particularly stupid either. Thanks for the vote of confidence! Taking Einstein’s technique of using mental projection to envision the Equivalence Principle, “…the motion of an object in an inertial reference frame is indistinguishable from the motion of the object in the absence of this field but with respect to a suitable uniformly accelerated reference system.” Meaning that we can’t tell the difference between standing on Earth’s surface and experiencing 1G vs being on a ship in space that is accelerating at 1G. So his ability to realize this from thinking about how for the brief moment someone falling off a roof, they will feel weightless until they hit the ground; into the Equivalence Principle is important for anyone working on cosmology and astro-physics.
@davidevans2810 Einstein used thought experiments, known as "Gedankenexperiments" in German, as a fundamental tool for understanding physical issues and drafting his theories. So don't undersell yourself; who knows if the next major breakthrough in physics happens while debating in a RUclips comment section? lol
🌌 What's Inside a Black Hole? If singularities might not exist, what do you think is at the center of a black hole? If black holes don't have singularities, could we potentially travel through them? Where do you think they might lead? Share your cosmic theories! 👽 Don't forget to like, subscribe, and ring that bell for more space mysteries! 🔔
Singularities have always been primarily accepted as being a quirk of the math, and not part of physical reality. Matter in the universe cannot exist without dimension, we just don't know what states of matter look like inside a black hole. Perhaps electromagnetism and the weak force recombine in matter with a density that is difficult to fathom, and properties that are only speculative. When we have a complete understanding of the quantum effects under such a large gravitational force we will know what matter looks like in those little toroidal objects. And we'll probably know a great deal more besides. Singularities are like dark matter, it's just a receptacle where you dump all the problems in your theory until a later date when you know what's actually going on there.
Woah, mind blown! Singularities are like the black holes of theories, sucking in all the unanswered questions. Can't wait for the day when we finally unravel their secrets and go, "Aha, so that's what's going on in there!"
You misunderstand the speed of light limit. The limit is only for objects within space and time. Space and Time themselves can move at any speed, this is why regions far away from us are expanding faster than light.
Ah, you are right. I listened to it again, and he said, "Here, spacetime itself moves faster than the speed of light.". Although yes, I actually kind of explain and use that phenomenon as an example in the video, with space expanding faster than the speed of light between two objects. What I thought he meant was that matter that entered the black hole would be accelerated faster than the speed of light. But is it possible for objects that have mass to reach or go faster than the speed of light? That's what I had in mind at that moment. Thanks for catching that!
Black holes exist we have observation evidence of that. Singularities may not exist. That's my takeaway.
And I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around infinity existing in a singularity, so its nice to know some really smart people have that same reaction.
Absolutely! It's fascinating how the concept of black holes challenges our understanding of the universe. The fact that singularities may not exist opens up new possibilities and theories to explore. It's also critical that theories don't become religions to the point where you can't question them any longer. Questioning everything is how new insights can be discovered.
If you ask me, arguing that singularities don't exist in reality is a very unscientific stance. Our best equations that predict how the universe work predict that singularities exist. We do know those equations are not complete yet and break down when values get too high (for example in the centre of a black hole) which is why our equations start to spit out the value infinity - but to argue that singularities don't exist on the basis that we don't have a complete understanding of the physical laws that dictate how the universe work is just foolish unless you have access to a more complete equation or equations that predicts how the universe works more accurately than the laws of general and special relativity currently do and does not predict black holes. It could be that once we discover the most accurate possible equation that describes how the universe works that it no longer predicts singularities - but the only way to find that out is to discover that more accurate equation and to assert that singularities don't exist before that point is just not a position based in science.
I get why Einstein didn't believe in singularities in nature - it wasn't that he thought his equations did not predict them, he knew they did when he was shown the math. It was his argument that the physical conditions that would allow a singularity to form using his equations were not conditions that existed in nature, and that therefore there were no singularities out there despite the fact his equations could be pushed to the point where one would be produced on paper. He thought they didn't exist for the same reason physicists today tend to think white holes don't exist in nature - nobody has shown any natural conditions that exist in the universe which could produce them. If he was alive today, he'd absolutely believe in them, because there is now math to show how under naturally occurring conditions his equations would predict a singularity.
As for the whole speed of light thing, the reason that it's not possible to exceed the speed of light is basically because E = mc². Adding energy to something by accelerating it through space also adds mass to it, and the more mass there is the more energy is required to accelerate it even further, meaning it becomes even more massive and requires even more energy to accelerate even faster and so on and so forth. If you try change the value of E to higher than is required to reach the speed of light, the equation breaks because E = mc² can't be true if E is as high or higher than mc². I'd also say that it's highly unlikely we discover that more accurate laws of physics would allow faster than light travel for something with mass - there is a finite amount of energy we can get our hands on, and we already know it's not enough to accelerate anything to the speed of light.
@StreakyBaconMan Thanks for the insightful thoughts! I agree that dismissing singularities entirely is not scientifically justified based on our current theories. As you said, future theories may change things, but for now singularities do seem mathematically unavoidable under extreme gravity.
I think Einstein's skepticism came from a good place scientifically, even if he may have been proven wrong by modern evidence of black holes. It will be fascinating to see if a more complete theory of quantum gravity changes the picture further. Finding the link between general relativity and the quantum world might end up bringing about ground-breaking insights to the universe like never before.
I really enjoyed your detailed explanation of why it's essentially impossible to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light. The relationship between energy, mass, and velocity that you laid out illustrates perfectly why c is likely an absolute speed limit. Great commentary!
I appreciate you sharing your perspective!
@StreakyBaconMan By the way, why do you think this debate is still raging within some circles? Even to the point where people like Roy Kerr, who are well established in science and mathematics, are putting out papers that argue that singularities do not exist in the physical world?
Mainly due to the breakdown in math, with "infinity" results, right? Pointing to still missing a big piece of the answer.
@@DonMecca Part of the problem is people will latch onto someone like Roy Kerr who may appear to be supporting their unscientific belief even if he's not in reality and what he's saying is just too complicated for them to actually understand. Roy Kerr has never argued that singularities don't exist, just that it has not been proved that a singularity is inevitable when an event horizon forms around a collapsing star. He doesn't say that a singularity doesn't form or that they don't exist in nature, just that they are not inevitable as some people thought the equations showed.
If I am honest I hit the limits of my understanding when I start trying to look into WHY Roy Kerr doesn't think a singularity is inevitable, but essentially it appears like he has found a way with the equations to make a black hole with an event horizon, but not have a singularity at it's core and essentially he's arguing that his explanation is just as likely as the singularity explanation for what is at the centre of a black hole. So even if we were to adopt the position of Roy Kerr, it doesn't mean we'd believe singularities are impossible in nature - just that it's one of at least two possible explanations for what is at the centre of a black hole.
@StreakyBaconMan You make a fair point. While singularities remain theoretically possible based on our current understanding, we can't rule out alternatives like Kerr's theory until we have a complete theory of quantum gravity. The debate continues because there are still open questions, but reasonable minds can disagree.
Wrong, most physicists don't believe singularities are anything other than the mathematics of an incomplete theory, they don't actually think they are physical objects. If you think it's just Kerr, you simply have a giant gap in your understanding of the study of black holes. The singularity in all real black holes is at least a toroid with non-zero dimension. But they have volume as well. We just haven't come up with a more complete theory of quantum gravity yet that would allow us to complete general relativity for objects under those conditions. Do you think large black holes and small black holes have the same dimensions? Of course not. Neither do their singularities.
Watched this video few days ago too. Pretty interesting
Do you think it will ever be possible to have a definite answer to this? lol Since it's a one-way trip with no escape.
@@DonMecca i think not 😅
Unless we discovers OP physics that let us break all limits, I'm afraid that the inside of black holes will be hidden forever
@trunzlerclement3227 lol, one can only dream of such a possibility one day. The master key to the universe. The admin passcode to the programming the universe.
Singularities don’t make sense. I have tried for years to make it make sense, and I can’t do it. They probably are not as described. A black hole singularity is probably a 3D structure which shares a single point in time. Thus it is both a singularity, but also a real 3D object. Just all parts of the volume is effectively the same place. There is no such thing as up or down, no left or right, no forward or backwards. Everything is just the same: Maximum Density.
It's a 3D object and most physicists believe so too. Only the lay public has latched onto the mathematical singularity because they don't know the rest of the story.
Dude, I feel you! Singularities are like the ultimate mind-benders. It's like trying to wrap your head around the concept of infinity or the idea that time can bend and twist. But hey, keep pushing those brain cells, and who knows, maybe you'll crack the code and become the next Einstein!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. It's always refreshing to hear different perspectives on complex topics like singularities. It's this kind of engagement and curiosity that makes our scientific community thrive. Keep questioning and exploring, and who knows, you might stumble upon a breakthrough!
@@DonMecca Well, I am no Einstein. But I ain’t particularly stupid either.
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Taking Einstein’s technique of using mental projection to envision the Equivalence Principle, “…the motion of an object in an inertial reference frame is indistinguishable from the motion of the object in the absence of this field but with respect to a suitable uniformly accelerated reference system.”
Meaning that we can’t tell the difference between standing on Earth’s surface and experiencing 1G vs being on a ship in space that is accelerating at 1G.
So his ability to realize this from thinking about how for the brief moment someone falling off a roof, they will feel weightless until they hit the ground; into the Equivalence Principle is important for anyone working on cosmology and astro-physics.
@davidevans2810 Einstein used thought experiments, known as "Gedankenexperiments" in German, as a fundamental tool for understanding physical issues and drafting his theories. So don't undersell yourself; who knows if the next major breakthrough in physics happens while debating in a RUclips comment section? lol