Sorry for delay getting this one out - bit a of a crazy time at Sixty Symbols HQ... Our previous videos on Nobel Prizes: bit.ly/SSNobel Telescope Tours: bit.ly/telescopetours Brady interviews Roger Penrose on Numberphile: ruclips.net/video/JiDWGbsVEno/видео.html
Immensely happy and proud Penrose's work has been given the highest honour, i have come to physics later in life but am a huge fan. Rather embarrased, having been an undergraduate there, to learn his key paper was written while a professor at Birkbeck. Yet another world-class science feather in the cap for UK universities.
Oppenheimer and others : "Consider a spherical cow..." Penrose: "But cows aren't necessarily spherical! Anyway, here's how it would still work with a real cow..."
I am so grateful that many people are willing and very able to continually devote their time to communicating the wonders of the universe! Penrose is a valuable recipient of the Nobel Prize and someone who has also made huge contributions to the communication within the public sphere of wondrous ideas.
I have to say the video of the star tracks (and presumably planets orbiting these stars) orbiting the massive object at the center of our milky way galaxy was truly amazing. These observations and the conclusions drawn are very worthy of a Nobel.
Hoped for a Becky Cameo. Infrared is difficult. With the different infrared camera and lenses I own I have never seen a star(apart from the sun, which is dangerous) or the moon. The sky is grey. Clouds can be seen, but a clear night sky is a nothing signal. I see bats and planes and that's it.
thats because in order to see the infrared light coming from space you have to shield your instrument from the heat of the instrument itself, of the earth and the sun, hence the sails that will protect the mirrors on the james webb telescope.
@@arasharfa it depends on what wavelength you are interested. As the terminology of Astronomy is different to the one I am used to with thermal cameras, I would say that my aim is the N band and my main lenses are the the 8-12µm range. JWST has MCT and AsSi based detector in the "midinfrared" range, those have to be cooled to very low temepratures, below ambient(even in space). My sensors as ASi and uncooled, they work without issue and supposedly can pickup a vehicle at 30km, And as the Mond and Sun are visible, planets might be - but those are likely out of reach with the 150mm f/1 lens. I am not aware that cooled MWIR (3-7µm) InSb or InGaAs detectors can pickup stars at night, the integration time is just too limited. But yet again, I don't have access to SLS or QWIP level cameras and are stuck with uncooled microbolometers
I love the breadth of books in the bookshelf: Zog, the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, DIY, dictionary, Secrets of the Maze, etc also some lego, a teddy bear. It's great.
Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model looks interesting again, and this will be a great opportunity for him to explain it to another generation. Again, black holes figure in his latest theories. Go Penrose!
Einstein didn't get the Nobel for general relativity. But I am glad Penrose got it. It's very interesting and important work (even if not the final word on gravity).
I know its a rough analogue, but if you want a visual representation of why its hard to see the center of the galaxy, open a map viewer of Elite Dangerous (the videogame), and notice the star density from Sol, to Sag A, and you'll see star systems are packed in like sardines near the center, nebulous clouds are more common, and the density above and below the galactic plane are almost tenfold from the spiral arms we are in with our solar system
It's almost like movement is relative and if an object falling into a blackhole one would loose the hability to persive time because all particles right next to it would follow a "truly straight line geodesic"
It's now proven! The thumbnail approves!! Alfred Nobel is the singularity present at the center of our galaxy's supermassive blackhole - Sagittarius A* (Great thumbnail!!)
Mike talks about observing the complete orbit of a star around the center of the galaxy. How much of an orbit do you have to observe before you can infer all it's characteristics? Also I love his cupboard under the stairs office ;)
Assuming the center or one of the focal points (i.e. the object it's orbiting around) is known and the sample points aren't symmetric around that point, the orbit can be determined with 3 points.
It depends. on how well you can measure. With perfect accuracy 3 measurements should do it, assuming the object's orbit is stable. If there's errors in your measurements or the body is in a complex gravitational environment, then it's possible to need more than one orbit before you can have confidence.
It can't be split between more than three people (unless things have changed recently). This has led to claims that the committee has waited for person #4 (or more) to die before nominating for a Nobel if they can't figure out how to get the number down to three for something otherwise deserving. This (if the claims are correct) not only causes person #4 to get the shaft, but for persons 1-3 to get the recognition much later than they otherwise would.
It seems to me that this has become the norm more or less for the medicine, chemistry, physics and economy. Litterature is awarded to just one person, usually.
I love the fact that they worded it that way. It amplifies the merit of proving (or disproving) a fully fledged black hole is really there. "What else could it be" shouldn't be enough for anybody imo. ^_^
That's a pretty ignorant view of science, you can't prove anything with absolute certainty. The argument for it being a black hole is A LOT stronger than "what else could it be" at this point, the person in the video was playing devils advocate a bit and he even said it was "almost certain" which is more we can say for other accepted theories we have. I don't mind Nobel hedging their bets here since it doesn't really matter for the discovery.
It has to be a very massive and relatively opaque celestial object. If scientists manage to observe its size is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius then that will mean there must be an event horizon
@@nihlify The point is that it's not known beyond all reasonable doubt that General Relativistic block holes actually exist; never mind the idea that there is one at the centre of the Milkyway. The evidence is not yet compelling enough to declare that there is definitely a black hole at our galactic centre. All we know for sure is that there is a very dark, supermassive object at the centre of our Milkyway. They should probably have waited another decade to give a Nobel prize for black holes and instead of Penrose they should have given it to the lead researchers of the Event Horizon Telescope.
The massive object at the galaxy-center must be a black whole, since objects of that mass must be black holes. Therefore black holes exists, as nothing else can be that massive. (I like the circular nature of that proof)
I started a physics degree part time 5 years ago, one of the reasons is I want to know about black holes. Its beyond fascinating that such things are theorised let alone exist.
If an observer were inside a black hole, 1) would time dilation exist, and if so, 2) might tidal forces at an extremely slow time scale resemble "The Big Rip"?
13:00 How does that work: time ending at the end of the geodesic? I thought that after passing the event horizon time and space change roles, so we have space flowing in one direction and we have three dimensions of time. How do those three dimensions end at the geodesic?
The difference is that Penrose got it for theoretical work on gravity, whereas Thorne got it for the experimental confirmation. Nobels for purely theoretical physics arent too common.
If time gets dilated when one goes close to a black hole, if one gets close enough, does time stops for an outside observer? If yes, how close to the black hole? Does it mean there's no singularity, but a bunch of matter or energy congealed in a sphere of non-zero radius?
So is time and space infinitable streacthable and compresable? If things keep falling in black holes it means time and space have no phisicallity or what? So many questions.
Can one of the Professors talk about what a black hole would see from its point of view? For instance, if time simply doesn't exist there does that mean it's seen the end of our universe? Or has it seen nothing at all and doesn't know that the universe exists?
Two minutes in i realise i don't know what was being said, sitting there, thinking, how come quarks bunch up in there, what are they doing, where the energy that supported the atomic structure goes, what space-time curvature does inside the black hole IF the quarks bunch up, and what if quarks themselves break down to something more fundamental. Is infinitely small relative to the singularity or the outside observer?
Because it is not an AGN (active galactic nuclei), not all compact objects are actively accreting lots matter at any one time. It technically is accreting *some* matter, just no where near enough for it to be considered an AGN.
They did try to get an image of the black hole in our galaxy as well, but they encountered some problems. I think they were still continuing to do so, but Covid additionally delayed this.
I keep posing this question and I've been stymied. If the Black Holes are subject to Hawking Radiation eroding them, does the expansion of the Universe affect this? At the 'surface' (Event Horizon) does this affect the size, gravity or radiating of the BH or does it retain absolute control due to its 'Singularity ' status? Predictions as to the END of EVERYTHING (Heat Death in an Ever Expanding Universe) are useless fantasies (my POV) without answers about the interaction of the immovable and unstoppable changes.
Next year, or the year after that, the award will be given to the makers of the James Webb space telescope for seeing the centre of the Milky Way............ i’m guessing it will be able to see the accretion disk.......... any thoughts?
A curious thing in here is that whene stars get close to the BH stars jump on speed when should be the the opposite since it is atracted by the black hole, then why stars get a speed up when near? it can not be the BH spin due that stars do not follow same orbit they seem to go in different direction.
Before the comments section turns wild, a friendly reminder. In order to understand any scientific development bear in mind several factors: -Peer pressure. -Confirmation bias. -Funding of science. -Peer review mechanism. -Theoretical vs. empiric. -Institutionalization of science. -Pre set outcome of research. -Maths are not science. -Science isnt a set of truths, but a self correcting analytical tool. Thank you for your consideration.
i have a question, throw something at a black hole, what speed will it have when crossing the event horizon? after crossing it, what speed will it have then? i mean it is gonna accelerate before, and after crossing it. does a proton that fell in for example "hit" the singularity? it can't even orbit it since the only paths it will be able to take is towards it. after it hits it with well... i cant imagine it going slower than 99.999% of the speed of light. then it stops instantly and all this energy is trapped since even a centimeter below the event horizon a photon or whatever literally can't go anywhere... i think.
How are Genzel and Getz equivalent to Roger Penrose? They used someone else’s telescope to say there is probably a supermassive black hole. Penrose is The Godfather of black holes, referenced and loved by everyone with even the remotest interest in the subject.
13:01 Presumably there's some sort of infinity involved here, but how do you reach that infinity. Isn't it more like an asymptote? It all feels like 1/x .
@13:13 Just making sure: Is "1992.23" around the 24th of March, 1992? And `0.05"` is a measurement in inches. Just out of curiosity, assuming the measurement is of the image sensor, is the native format for image sensor measurements imperial? (Folks, I'm American, any dissing is unintended, don't be a mine in this minefield of the format war okay?)
Is there any distance between the event horizon and the singularity? I fully expect the answer to be "who knows" since we cannot see past the event horizon. I have another question regarding star size. If a young large star has a mass of say 15 times that of our sun, will that star ALWAYS have that same mass throughout its lifecycle? I assume if a star grows in size its density diminishes. Is our sun has 1 solar mass and it does then what will the mass be billions of years from now when it has grown into a red giant?
The size of a star has zero effect on its mass. The mass of any object depends only upon the number of atoms it contains, regardless if they’re far apart or very nearby. When a star like the sun is nearing its end and goes through red giant stage, it is getting hotter, due to helium and boron, etc burning in the core and shells, and that’s why it swells and goes red giant. Regardless, EVERY star in the universe is constantly losing incredibly huge amounts of mass. The sun, for example, loses about 4.3 billion kg every second in the form of the energy we feel on a sunny day. All stars are the same and the larger the star the faster and hotter it burns. Large stars lose mass at a much more prodigious rate, they can sometimes last as little as just a few million years for really massive stars.
Singularities. GR predicts them, but GR can't cope with them. How is that consistent? Is it possible/likely that GR2.0 will no longer include singularities.
The universe is a quantised reality but GR treats space as a continuous medium. Its a moot point that you can't answer the secrets of physics without a quantised theory of gravity. No version of GR with continuous space-time as it stands can do that. Though its worth noting that there will be no GR2.0, like there was no Newtonian physics 2.0 or no Aristotlean physics 2.0.
@@blue-pi2kt That's a great reply. Thanks. I spend a lot of (very amateur) time thinking about continuity and discreteness; I keep wondering whether the issue here (and elsewhere) is the mathematics based on continuity.
@@guest_informant I think it's easy to want to point to the incomprehensible math but it's really much more associated with extreme expense of new experiments which are invariably astrological (requiring expensive ground installations often with a narrow focus, think LIGO or the even more expensive satellites) or high energy (Fermilab and LHC, also the catch is that they are very expensive). In the days of Faraday or Maxwell, there was an abundance of experimental evidence with limited theorisation and that really isn't the case anymore where theoretical frameworks without any real empirical foundation are more abundant. With that said, physicists continue to design new and innovative experiments but you know..... its gonna take some time but you know we've had some killer discoveries of late with gravity waves and Higgs in the last decade so I won't be too pessimistic.
So your thumbnail about black holes and Nobel Prize, has a black hole and a Nobel Prize on it???? Someone has got to check the statistical odds of that happening twice! 😉
Photons, which travel at light speed, 'experience'no time dilation so I think from your reference things would be the same for you but space and distance would be different.
This is a bit like asking if you'd notice getting shot in the head. Your reality would just stop. There'd be a last moment and nothing more. I suppose you'd remain ignorant, if not existent.
What's bugged me for a long time is, how does a singularity form if time stops once the object gets smaller than its Schwarzchild radius? I'd think that from the perspective of collapsing matter or energy, it would take infinitely long to reach (and therefore even to form) the singularity.
Go to "pbs space time" channel and watch the penrose diagram for mapping the multiverse video and then give me your thoughts here ;) in fact that's a must watch every video of that channel
@@wikipediaboyful I was going to suggest the same thing! I don't remember if that's where I heard this, but I remember seeing someone use Penrose diagrams to show how space and time sort of switch roles inside a black hole. Space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like, which is even more mind boggling than time or space just ending.
@@dennisdavis6943 yes! That's the channel, monkeys and past-future cones at the presence of black holes... there's a huge course on that topic in that channel
@@wikipediaboyful It provided a fair amount mind bogoling, haha. Once very interesting thing was actually the idea of 'white holes', which I hadn't thought about at all until then.
I have read an on quora on a similar question. The answer was from a physicist who said that singularities are simular to singularities in mathematical functions, like in a function 1/x. At x=0 the function is not defined it does not exist. If I understood his explanation for laymens like me, time and space don't exist in the black hole singularity just like the function 1/x doesn't exist at x=0.
@@RandallHayter he did get it though, and Wikipedia says he got it "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" so maybe they just didn't give relativity a special mention since it was still a new theory, photoelectric effect was more testable. Maybe if he hadn't made a discovery like the photoelectric effect he might have still got the nobel prize
I don't think that it has been shown that singularities are real ( 1:45 ) in the physical (and ontological) sense. Of course the video is informal and colloquial, so I'm not nitpicking at it but just taking the occasion to express my thoughts on the matter. GR (Einstein's equations) is underdetermining, which we can express by saying that its claim as a physical theory is that any physical situation shall be representable as a solution of GR, but not all solutions of GR should represent physical situations, or should do so in their entirety. Thus, how do we complement GR with criteria to distinguish physically sensible solutions? One conjecture that we could add is a general expression of (local) causation, for instance we could require that what occurs here is determined by what affects whatever is here. In general, GR does not satisfy this conjecture, and specifically it violates it if an EH (event horizon, in this discussion I intend solely collapse-EH, or BH-, black hole, EH) is present in the "outer" universe, the latter being assumed to be a candidate for our physical universe. By Birkhoff's theorem, considering the Schwarzschild's solution in vacuum inside a spherical shell of matter we deduce that, while the external mass affects the time dilation within the shell, the Schwarzschild's radius for a given r is only determined by mass within that same r (arXiv:1203.4428v1), which implies that the external mass does not affect the EH, which is entirely determined by the EH inner mass. In other terms, a mass cavity does not yield a metric cavity (I'll admit, contrary to what I used to consider as a possibility for "physical EH"). Since the form of the continuation of the metric across the EH implies that nothing from the EH or its inside affects the outer universe, and, by the previous argument, the outer universe cannot by itself determine (cause) the EH (its presence and evolution in the outer universe), then the presence of an EH would contradict the conjecture. Thus, either the conjecture is false (which is a possibility), or (collapse-)EH's are not present in physical solutions of GR. We could exclude EH's from physical solutions if they are not present in the beginning and then they cannot form. A reformulation of the conjecture is that this is to be assessed according to "physical perspectives". This translates the conjecture in the language of observers following the consideration that the perspective of observation is the "perspective" of causation. According to GR, for any such physical perspective defined from events in the outer (w.r.t. the EH) universe, no EH is observable. Which is consistent with the fact (indeed another way of saying) that the EH and its inside does not affect the outer universe. It is a short step to express this as: there is no EH in physical solutions of GR, if the conjecture is a correct complement to GR. The reason is that in any physical perspective it takes an infinite amount of time for the EH to form. In the causation language, it takes an infinite amount of time before an EH could affect what is (will be) "here" (by that time). Note that this is true for in-falling perspectives as well. Comoving coordinates are not physical perspectives because what I am seeing now being there is not what I'll see when I'll be there. In fact, even if it should take a finite amount of time for me to fall in an EH, while I'm not there I won't see an EH, and the same is true for any perspective in the outer universe, and, from the perspective of what is not going to fall into it, my finite amount of time is still an infinite amount. If matter were to reach the EH, there would be a discontinuity in the accompanying perspective when it hits the EH, this discontinuity represents causal disconnection respect to the outer universe. But this limit might not be a physical situation at all. BH radiation is still possible in the outer universe (where it should completely occur according to the conjecture), before EH formation (at plus infinite time), not so much in the form of vacuum radiation by the Hawking mechanism (which is not well closed causally), but by the disruptive effect of curvature on bound states. An in-falling system will experience a progressive dynamical distortion of the intensity and effective range of the fields maintaining its bounds. In the limit approaching the EH formation (yet, all the while, before it forms) the capacity to maintain bounds in the radial direction goes to zero (this is one of the meanings of the radial direction becoming time-like within the EH), so that decaying out of bound states depends on the rapidity of the progressive deformation. If this is correct, and if no massive stable-fundamental field is available, the matter subject to gravitational collapse will eventually evaporate as massless radiation before reaching the EH. This will happen at a finite time entirely within the scope of the outer universe, completely preventing the formation of collapse-EH and completing the universe without continuations across EH's. If this scenario occurs, the long term effect of gravitational collapse is the evaporation of the external collapsing shell of the massive object up to the point in which the internal core is left in a gravitationally stable state (e.g. neutron star), with the evaporation process occurring before EH formation. This scenario has, of course, no issues regarding information loss, or any other inconsistency from the causation disconnection resulting at a hypothetical EH. If, for these reasons or other possibilities, collapse EH are not part of the physical solutions of GR, then the Penrose's censorship conjecture might hold in a strong sense, and the internal singularities are not real, in the proper physical sense, with no contradiction with the fact that they are an implication of the (underdetermining) theory.
The word singularity is said a lot of times without ever mentioning what it could possibly be. I bet many people think it could be a huge nucleus of quarks glued together, but not in triplets.
There is/are ends-in-vanishing point-positioning of time-timing sync-duration pulses, ->orbital/orbit compositions of pure relative motion, which is the instantaneously implied numberness mass-energy-momentum function of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect, which is self-defining Actuality due to superimposed logarithmic exponentials condensation modulation phase-locking here-now-forever. If all the terminology familiar to you is physical and rerely temporal, then there's a choice of starting all over from the AM-FM Communication Technology and Perspective Projection Drawing POV, or matching pace with other Students who can "catch you up". Otherwise, a non temporal superposition identification orientation is obscured by cultural/habitual mind "blind-sight", meaning that half the information reading observed, is integrated by feel, leaving the other half unidentified. (It's the exact same information bleeding universe!)
I thought it was the other way around, and Hawking's work was based on Penrose's, but I may be wrong, I'm not familiar with their stuff except in a very broad sense
Sorry for delay getting this one out - bit a of a crazy time at Sixty Symbols HQ...
Our previous videos on Nobel Prizes: bit.ly/SSNobel
Telescope Tours: bit.ly/telescopetours
Brady interviews Roger Penrose on Numberphile: ruclips.net/video/JiDWGbsVEno/видео.html
The Numberphile interview with Sir Roger is a podcast (no visuals), but definitely worth listening to.
I hope you will upload a video on the Chemistry prize on Periodic.
Hardly a delay-this is incredible timeliness.
I was wondering... what's the diameter of a singularity? A plank length??? or something we cant comprehend?
I hope professor Merrifield will be released soon from his captor's basement
Upstairs basement.
It puts the video on the net, or else it gets the hose again
looks like a comfy workspace tbh
Be careful today when searching "Giant Black Hole Pics"
All I keep getting are scientific articles.
Only 50 secs have gone by, but still underrated comment.
Immensely happy and proud Penrose's work has been given the highest honour, i have come to physics later in life but am a huge fan. Rather embarrased, having been an undergraduate there, to learn his key paper was written while a professor at Birkbeck. Yet another world-class science feather in the cap for UK universities.
Oppenheimer and others : "Consider a spherical cow..."
Penrose: "But cows aren't necessarily spherical! Anyway, here's how it would still work with a real cow..."
Whatever you do, don't try to tip a spherical cow!
Sphere Cow
Sphere Cow
I am so grateful that many people are willing and very able to continually devote their time to communicating the wonders of the universe! Penrose is a valuable recipient of the Nobel Prize and someone who has also made huge contributions to the communication within the public sphere of wondrous ideas.
very happy about Penrose. Long time coming...well... depending on your distance from said objects
Great show Roger Penrose!!! Well deserved, a unique mind brilliantly painting the cosmos!
Tony's jacket audio simulator
Yeah the audio on this first guy is really bad lol
Ooh, I was anxiously waiting for this video!!
I have to say the video of the star tracks (and presumably planets orbiting these stars) orbiting the massive object at the center of our milky way galaxy was truly amazing. These observations and the conclusions drawn are very worthy of a Nobel.
sound is kinda iffy on this one. love the content nevertheless
Hoped for a Becky Cameo.
Infrared is difficult. With the different infrared camera and lenses I own I have never seen a star(apart from the sun, which is dangerous) or the moon. The sky is grey. Clouds can be seen, but a clear night sky is a nothing signal. I see bats and planes and that's it.
thats why sending an infrared telescope to space has so much more value than any visible shenanigens
@@S1nwar there is an atmospheric window between 8 and 12 μm. Sensors at I can get my hands on just don't allow long integration times.
thats because in order to see the infrared light coming from space you have to shield your instrument from the heat of the instrument itself, of the earth and the sun, hence the sails that will protect the mirrors on the james webb telescope.
@@arasharfa it depends on what wavelength you are interested. As the terminology of Astronomy is different to the one I am used to with thermal cameras, I would say that my aim is the N band and my main lenses are the the 8-12µm range. JWST has MCT and AsSi based detector in the "midinfrared" range, those have to be cooled to very low temepratures, below ambient(even in space).
My sensors as ASi and uncooled, they work without issue and supposedly can pickup a vehicle at 30km, And as the Mond and Sun are visible, planets might be - but those are likely out of reach with the 150mm f/1 lens.
I am not aware that cooled MWIR (3-7µm) InSb or InGaAs detectors can pickup stars at night, the integration time is just too limited. But yet again, I don't have access to SLS or QWIP level cameras and are stuck with uncooled microbolometers
@@Veptis thanks for the science lesson! Loved to read it :) I would love to have the funds to pursue astronomy photography.
when he described how you would be immortal falling into a black hole towards a geodesic reminded me of my salvia divindorum trip
My day is now complete. Thank you.
A lot of trees in the background, almost like a forest, a Nottingham Forest...
it's the hood
My old alma mater..that lake was full of shopping trolleys in 1986
I love the breadth of books in the bookshelf: Zog, the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, DIY, dictionary, Secrets of the Maze, etc also some lego, a teddy bear. It's great.
That’s Charlie Cook’s Favourite Book (not Zog). Still, high-brow either way.
I've been looking for a channel like this. Wonderful work!
Nobel prize prestige goes up as it was awarded to Sir Roger Penrose
I have been waiting for this sixty symbols
Get that man a proper microphone!
Please cover Dr. Penrose's theory of CCC. It would be great to hear some other opinions on it.
We need a new Ed Copeland video talking about the latest developments in cosmic strings.
Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model looks interesting again, and this will be a great opportunity for him to explain it to another generation. Again, black holes figure in his latest theories. Go Penrose!
I tried (and failed) twice now to read through the Road to Reality by Penrose. I'm not giving up just yet.
hey i wanted Ed copeland to weigh in too!
Bruv I like your name.
@@RedStefan and i like yours
Relative of Dhruv Rathee?
@@randomdude9135 haha no
I had to check my audio settings lol something up with that lapelle mic I think. Still fascinating as always thahnks
these explanations are easy to listen to
Einstein didn't get the Nobel for general relativity. But I am glad Penrose got it. It's very interesting and important work (even if not the final word on gravity).
"They weren't unpleasant to each other"
Oh just you wait...
I know its a rough analogue, but if you want a visual representation of why its hard to see the center of the galaxy, open a map viewer of Elite Dangerous (the videogame), and notice the star density from Sol, to Sag A, and you'll see star systems are packed in like sardines near the center, nebulous clouds are more common, and the density above and below the galactic plane are almost tenfold from the spiral arms we are in with our solar system
Audio quality is a bit rough, so had to crank up the volume. Content is great though.
I miss these guys !
more videos ! please !
It's almost like movement is relative and if an object falling into a blackhole one would loose the hability to persive time because all particles right next to it would follow a "truly straight line geodesic"
Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark are my favorite modern physicists.
Being able to draw is in the blood. Roland Penrose, who was Britain's best known surrealist painter was Roger's Uncle.
The voices seem clearer to me. Thanks!!
It's now proven! The thumbnail approves!! Alfred Nobel is the singularity present at the center of our galaxy's supermassive blackhole - Sagittarius A*
(Great thumbnail!!)
Great video as always. But 2016 Nobel video is still missing :D
Fantastic Mr. Fox!
Top book!
Mike talks about observing the complete orbit of a star around the center of the galaxy. How much of an orbit do you have to observe before you can infer all it's characteristics? Also I love his cupboard under the stairs office ;)
Assuming the center or one of the focal points (i.e. the object it's orbiting around) is known and the sample points aren't symmetric around that point, the orbit can be determined with 3 points.
If not, you need 6 points
It depends. on how well you can measure. With perfect accuracy 3 measurements should do it, assuming the object's orbit is stable. If there's errors in your measurements or the body is in a complex gravitational environment, then it's possible to need more than one orbit before you can have confidence.
Congrats to all the new laureates!
Never knew Nobel prizes were split between multiple people. Interesting video none-the-less!
It can't be split between more than three people (unless things have changed recently). This has led to claims that the committee has waited for person #4 (or more) to die before nominating for a Nobel if they can't figure out how to get the number down to three for something otherwise deserving. This (if the claims are correct) not only causes person #4 to get the shaft, but for persons 1-3 to get the recognition much later than they otherwise would.
It seems to me that this has become the norm more or less for the medicine, chemistry, physics and economy. Litterature is awarded to just one person, usually.
I love the fact that they worded it that way. It amplifies the merit of proving (or disproving) a fully fledged black hole is really there. "What else could it be" shouldn't be enough for anybody imo. ^_^
That's a pretty ignorant view of science, you can't prove anything with absolute certainty. The argument for it being a black hole is A LOT stronger than "what else could it be" at this point, the person in the video was playing devils advocate a bit and he even said it was "almost certain" which is more we can say for other accepted theories we have. I don't mind Nobel hedging their bets here since it doesn't really matter for the discovery.
@@nihlify I disagree with you. But is ok.
Could it be e stream of mass- light coming from the galaxie center? as you see the stars near the black hole they do orbit in all directions.
It has to be a very massive and relatively opaque celestial object. If scientists manage to observe its size is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius then that will mean there must be an event horizon
@@nihlify The point is that it's not known beyond all reasonable doubt that General Relativistic block holes actually exist; never mind the idea that there is one at the centre of the Milkyway. The evidence is not yet compelling enough to declare that there is definitely a black hole at our galactic centre. All we know for sure is that there is a very dark, supermassive object at the centre of our Milkyway. They should probably have waited another decade to give a Nobel prize for black holes and instead of Penrose they should have given it to the lead researchers of the Event Horizon Telescope.
I guess I'll have to read about that Penrose bloke!!
1:25 Who knows what lurks in the heart of Black Hole? The Penrose knows!
The massive object at the galaxy-center must be a black whole, since objects of that mass must be black holes. Therefore black holes exists, as nothing else can be that massive. (I like the circular nature of that proof)
Penrose is an absolute mad lad
how far down does the spaghettification go? human:yes. cell:yes. molecule:yes. atom? quark?
I miss science videos :(
please also give an accessible links to all the papers mentioned in the video. The penrose paper and others.. Please ...........
It blows my mind that things such as black holes exist within the universe, and are so insane that we have no idea what's inside them.
Keep doing what you are...you connect the RUclips viewers across the platform... you're like forest grump of RUclips commenters...
At this point I'm convinced google even hired this dude just to keep doing what he has been doing
I started a physics degree part time 5 years ago, one of the reasons is I want to know about black holes. Its beyond fascinating that such things are theorised let alone exist.
This topic was mind blowing. But seeing you here was more astonishing.
What should blow your mind is the fact that we have more knowledge about black holes than we do about what's at the bottom of the oceans.
This reminds me of Pierson's Puppeteers and why they left.
If an observer were inside a black hole, 1) would time dilation exist, and if so, 2) might tidal forces at an extremely slow time scale resemble "The Big Rip"?
13:00 How does that work: time ending at the end of the geodesic? I thought that after passing the event horizon time and space change roles, so we have space flowing in one direction and we have three dimensions of time. How do those three dimensions end at the geodesic?
No. The distance from the center of the black hole takes the role of time, and the time coordinate becomes space-like.
People seem to forget Kip Thorne also won a Nobel for working on gravity
The difference is that Penrose got it for theoretical work on gravity, whereas Thorne got it for the experimental confirmation. Nobels for purely theoretical physics arent too common.
If time gets dilated when one goes close to a black hole, if one gets close enough, does time stops for an outside observer? If yes, how close to the black hole? Does it mean there's no singularity, but a bunch of matter or energy congealed in a sphere of non-zero radius?
Time only stops at the singularity. The radius is 0.
@@Dolkarr How does that meshes with the spin of the black hole? Can it be frozen in time and still spin?
Can you please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) that proved black holes? Thank you!
Thanks guys, excellent video....... puts everything into perspective ... :-)
Why is it considered compact when time and space is relative?
So is time and space infinitable streacthable and compresable? If things keep falling in black holes it means time and space have no phisicallity or what? So many questions.
Can one of the Professors talk about what a black hole would see from its point of view? For instance, if time simply doesn't exist there does that mean it's seen the end of our universe? Or has it seen nothing at all and doesn't know that the universe exists?
How many minimum sized neutron stars mergers would it take to 'invoke' a black hole ?
Two minutes in i realise i don't know what was being said, sitting there, thinking, how come quarks bunch up in there, what are they doing, where the energy that supported the atomic structure goes, what space-time curvature does inside the black hole IF the quarks bunch up, and what if quarks themselves break down to something more fundamental. Is infinitely small relative to the singularity or the outside observer?
"Dreaded Singularity" is my next band name.
This is so interesting.
4:29 there's you new wallpaper
you're welcome 😁
Prof. Merrifield has LEGO in his office!
I'm disappointed the nobel prize wasn't equally divided into 3
Why can't we see the accretion disk of the object at the centre of the Milky Way?
Because it is not an AGN (active galactic nuclei), not all compact objects are actively accreting lots matter at any one time. It technically is accreting *some* matter, just no where near enough for it to be considered an AGN.
They did try to get an image of the black hole in our galaxy as well, but they encountered some problems. I think they were still continuing to do so, but Covid additionally delayed this.
I keep posing this question and I've been stymied. If the Black Holes are subject to Hawking Radiation eroding them, does the expansion of the Universe affect this? At the 'surface' (Event Horizon) does this affect the size, gravity or radiating of the BH or does it retain absolute control due to its 'Singularity ' status?
Predictions as to the END of EVERYTHING (Heat Death in an Ever Expanding Universe) are useless fantasies (my POV) without answers about the interaction of the immovable and unstoppable changes.
Fondness for you!
How long did they had to record the center of the Milky Way to get the video? 5-10-20 years? 4:15
Ok, the animation at 13:29 suggests it has been something around 15 years.
@@bzqp2 they say that it took 7 years for the nearest star to make a complite orbit, my guess is that its not been 15 years.
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace I just looked at the timer at 13:29
what does it tell ypu at 13:29?
@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace That the observation took place at least from 1992 until 2006.
Next year, or the year after that, the award will be given to the makers of the James Webb space telescope for seeing the centre of the Milky Way............ i’m guessing it will be able to see the accretion disk.......... any thoughts?
I am not surprised that there are those who decide to believe that the earth is flat, why not.
Super massiv object? I sense a "Your Mama"-Joke. 🤔
A curious thing in here is that whene stars get close to the BH stars jump on speed when should be the the opposite since it is atracted by the black hole, then why stars get a speed up when near? it can not be the BH spin due that stars do not follow same orbit they seem to go in different direction.
Beyond the event horizon of a black hole time flows backwards...
Before the comments section turns wild, a friendly reminder.
In order to understand any scientific development bear in mind several factors:
-Peer pressure.
-Confirmation bias.
-Funding of science.
-Peer review mechanism.
-Theoretical vs. empiric.
-Institutionalization of science.
-Pre set outcome of research.
-Maths are not science.
-Science isnt a set of truths, but a self correcting analytical tool.
Thank you for your consideration.
i have a question, throw something at a black hole, what speed will it have when crossing the event horizon? after crossing it, what speed will it have then? i mean it is gonna accelerate before, and after crossing it. does a proton that fell in for example "hit" the singularity? it can't even orbit it since the only paths it will be able to take is towards it. after it hits it with well... i cant imagine it going slower than 99.999% of the speed of light. then it stops instantly and all this energy is trapped since even a centimeter below the event horizon a photon or whatever literally can't go anywhere...
i think.
How are Genzel and Getz equivalent to Roger Penrose? They used someone else’s telescope to say there is probably a supermassive black hole. Penrose is The Godfather of black holes, referenced and loved by everyone with even the remotest interest in the subject.
13:01 Presumably there's some sort of infinity involved here, but how do you reach that infinity. Isn't it more like an asymptote? It all feels like 1/x .
Sixty Symbols, on the Canadian Penny
YAY❕ for the Big Brains❕🧠🧠🧠👀
Congrats to All. 🌀
Sir Roger Penrose looks uncannily similiar to Patrick Troughton ?
@13:13 Just making sure: Is "1992.23" around the 24th of March, 1992?
And `0.05"` is a measurement in inches.
Just out of curiosity, assuming the measurement is of the image sensor, is the native format for image sensor measurements imperial? (Folks, I'm American, any dissing is unintended, don't be a mine in this minefield of the format war okay?)
Is there any distance between the event horizon and the singularity? I fully expect the answer to be "who knows" since we cannot see past the event horizon.
I have another question regarding star size. If a young large star has a mass of say 15 times that of our sun, will that star ALWAYS have that same mass throughout its lifecycle? I assume if a star grows in size its density diminishes. Is our sun has 1 solar mass and it does then what will the mass be billions of years from now when it has grown into a red giant?
The size of a star has zero effect on its mass. The mass of any object depends only upon the number of atoms it contains, regardless if they’re far apart or very nearby. When a star like the sun is nearing its end and goes through red giant stage, it is getting hotter, due to helium and boron, etc burning in the core and shells, and that’s why it swells and goes red giant. Regardless, EVERY star in the universe is constantly losing incredibly huge amounts of mass. The sun, for example, loses about 4.3 billion kg every second in the form of the energy we feel on a sunny day. All stars are the same and the larger the star the faster and hotter it burns. Large stars lose mass at a much more prodigious rate, they can sometimes last as little as just a few million years for really massive stars.
We have to wait for quite long to get that Nobel Prize back as Hawking's radiation.
Singularities. GR predicts them, but GR can't cope with them. How is that consistent? Is it possible/likely that GR2.0 will no longer include singularities.
The universe is a quantised reality but GR treats space as a continuous medium. Its a moot point that you can't answer the secrets of physics without a quantised theory of gravity. No version of GR with continuous space-time as it stands can do that.
Though its worth noting that there will be no GR2.0, like there was no Newtonian physics 2.0 or no Aristotlean physics 2.0.
@@blue-pi2kt That's a great reply. Thanks. I spend a lot of (very amateur) time thinking about continuity and discreteness; I keep wondering whether the issue here (and elsewhere) is the mathematics based on continuity.
@@guest_informant I think it's easy to want to point to the incomprehensible math but it's really much more associated with extreme expense of new experiments which are invariably astrological (requiring expensive ground installations often with a narrow focus, think LIGO or the even more expensive satellites) or high energy (Fermilab and LHC, also the catch is that they are very expensive). In the days of Faraday or Maxwell, there was an abundance of experimental evidence with limited theorisation and that really isn't the case anymore where theoretical frameworks without any real empirical foundation are more abundant. With that said, physicists continue to design new and innovative experiments but you know..... its gonna take some time but you know we've had some killer discoveries of late with gravity waves and Higgs in the last decade so I won't be too pessimistic.
Seeing the thumbnail, I made a very similar picture for my blog post about the Nobel Prize, haha
So your thumbnail about black holes and Nobel Prize, has a black hole and a Nobel Prize on it???? Someone has got to check the statistical odds of that happening twice! 😉
if time stops, would the “person” inside even notice? ive been wondering since spy kids 3
Photons, which travel at light speed, 'experience'no time dilation so I think from your reference things would be the same for you but space and distance would be different.
This is a bit like asking if you'd notice getting shot in the head. Your reality would just stop. There'd be a last moment and nothing more. I suppose you'd remain ignorant, if not existent.
What's bugged me for a long time is, how does a singularity form if time stops once the object gets smaller than its Schwarzchild radius? I'd think that from the perspective of collapsing matter or energy, it would take infinitely long to reach (and therefore even to form) the singularity.
that kinda makes sense thanks lol that’s kinda what i thought but it’s very strange
I almost miss Nottingham....
These subjects are really boggling my mind beyond belief... Time/space 'stops'??
Go to "pbs space time" channel and watch the penrose diagram for mapping the multiverse video and then give me your thoughts here ;) in fact that's a must watch every video of that channel
@@wikipediaboyful I was going to suggest the same thing! I don't remember if that's where I heard this, but I remember seeing someone use Penrose diagrams to show how space and time sort of switch roles inside a black hole. Space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like, which is even more mind boggling than time or space just ending.
@@dennisdavis6943 yes! That's the channel, monkeys and past-future cones at the presence of black holes... there's a huge course on that topic in that channel
@@wikipediaboyful It provided a fair amount mind bogoling, haha. Once very interesting thing was actually the idea of 'white holes', which I hadn't thought about at all until then.
I have read an on quora on a similar question. The answer was from a physicist who said that singularities are simular to singularities in mathematical functions, like in a function 1/x. At x=0 the function is not defined it does not exist. If I understood his explanation for laymens like me, time and space don't exist in the black hole singularity just like the function 1/x doesn't exist at x=0.
If Steven Hawking was alive would he get a part of the Nobel as well?
Even Einstein didn't get a Nobel for either special or general relativity theories. The Penrose award is a significant deviation from the past.
@@RandallHayter he did get it though, and Wikipedia says he got it "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" so maybe they just didn't give relativity a special mention since it was still a new theory, photoelectric effect was more testable. Maybe if he hadn't made a discovery like the photoelectric effect he might have still got the nobel prize
@@l1mbo69 Yes - exactly my point. He got the prize for a discovery, not his much more famous relativity theories. The Penrose award for theory is new.
@@RandallHayter you didn't read the last line of my post
sorta, kinda. That's the scientific accuracy I'm looking for!
I don't think that it has been shown that singularities are real ( 1:45 ) in the physical (and ontological) sense.
Of course the video is informal and colloquial, so I'm not nitpicking at it but just taking the occasion to express my thoughts on the matter.
GR (Einstein's equations) is underdetermining, which we can express by saying that its claim as a physical theory is that any physical situation shall be representable as a solution of GR, but not all solutions of GR should represent physical situations, or should do so in their entirety. Thus, how do we complement GR with criteria to distinguish physically sensible solutions?
One conjecture that we could add is a general expression of (local) causation, for instance we could require that what occurs here is determined by what affects whatever is here.
In general, GR does not satisfy this conjecture, and specifically it violates it if an EH (event horizon, in this discussion I intend solely collapse-EH, or BH-, black hole, EH) is present in the "outer" universe, the latter being assumed to be a candidate for our physical universe.
By Birkhoff's theorem, considering the Schwarzschild's solution in vacuum inside a spherical shell of matter we deduce that, while the external mass affects the time dilation within the shell, the Schwarzschild's radius for a given r is only determined by mass within that same r (arXiv:1203.4428v1), which implies that the external mass does not affect the EH, which is entirely determined by the EH inner mass. In other terms, a mass cavity does not yield a metric cavity (I'll admit, contrary to what I used to consider as a possibility for "physical EH"). Since the form of the continuation of the metric across the EH implies that nothing from the EH or its inside affects the outer universe, and, by the previous argument, the outer universe cannot by itself determine (cause) the EH (its presence and evolution in the outer universe), then the presence of an EH would contradict the conjecture.
Thus, either the conjecture is false (which is a possibility), or (collapse-)EH's are not present in physical solutions of GR.
We could exclude EH's from physical solutions if they are not present in the beginning and then they cannot form.
A reformulation of the conjecture is that this is to be assessed according to "physical perspectives". This translates the conjecture in the language of observers following the consideration that the perspective of observation is the "perspective" of causation.
According to GR, for any such physical perspective defined from events in the outer (w.r.t. the EH) universe, no EH is observable. Which is consistent with the fact (indeed another way of saying) that the EH and its inside does not affect the outer universe. It is a short step to express this as: there is no EH in physical solutions of GR, if the conjecture is a correct complement to GR.
The reason is that in any physical perspective it takes an infinite amount of time for the EH to form. In the causation language, it takes an infinite amount of time before an EH could affect what is (will be) "here" (by that time).
Note that this is true for in-falling perspectives as well. Comoving coordinates are not physical perspectives because what I am seeing now being there is not what I'll see when I'll be there. In fact, even if it should take a finite amount of time for me to fall in an EH, while I'm not there I won't see an EH, and the same is true for any perspective in the outer universe, and, from the perspective of what is not going to fall into it, my finite amount of time is still an infinite amount.
If matter were to reach the EH, there would be a discontinuity in the accompanying perspective when it hits the EH, this discontinuity represents causal disconnection respect to the outer universe. But this limit might not be a physical situation at all.
BH radiation is still possible in the outer universe (where it should completely occur according to the conjecture), before EH formation (at plus infinite time), not so much in the form of vacuum radiation by the Hawking mechanism (which is not well closed causally), but by the disruptive effect of curvature on bound states. An in-falling system will experience a progressive dynamical distortion of the intensity and effective range of the fields maintaining its bounds. In the limit approaching the EH formation (yet, all the while, before it forms) the capacity to maintain bounds in the radial direction goes to zero (this is one of the meanings of the radial direction becoming time-like within the EH), so that decaying out of bound states depends on the rapidity of the progressive deformation. If this is correct, and if no massive stable-fundamental field is available, the matter subject to gravitational collapse will eventually evaporate as massless radiation before reaching the EH. This will happen at a finite time entirely within the scope of the outer universe, completely preventing the formation of collapse-EH and completing the universe without continuations across EH's. If this scenario occurs, the long term effect of gravitational collapse is the evaporation of the external collapsing shell of the massive object up to the point in which the internal core is left in a gravitationally stable state (e.g. neutron star), with the evaporation process occurring before EH formation. This scenario has, of course, no issues regarding information loss, or any other inconsistency from the causation disconnection resulting at a hypothetical EH.
If, for these reasons or other possibilities, collapse EH are not part of the physical solutions of GR, then the Penrose's censorship conjecture might hold in a strong sense, and the internal singularities are not real, in the proper physical sense, with no contradiction with the fact that they are an implication of the (underdetermining) theory.
The word singularity is said a lot of times without ever mentioning what it could possibly be. I bet many people think it could be a huge nucleus of quarks glued together, but not in triplets.
There is/are ends-in-vanishing point-positioning of time-timing sync-duration pulses, ->orbital/orbit compositions of pure relative motion, which is the instantaneously implied numberness mass-energy-momentum function of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect, which is self-defining Actuality due to superimposed logarithmic exponentials condensation modulation phase-locking here-now-forever.
If all the terminology familiar to you is physical and rerely temporal, then there's a choice of starting all over from the AM-FM Communication Technology and Perspective Projection Drawing POV, or matching pace with other Students who can "catch you up".
Otherwise, a non temporal superposition identification orientation is obscured by cultural/habitual mind "blind-sight", meaning that half the information reading observed, is integrated by feel, leaving the other half unidentified. (It's the exact same information bleeding universe!)
How much of Penrose was based off Hawkings work? I know they partnered on stuff.
I thought it was the other way around, and Hawking's work was based on Penrose's, but I may be wrong, I'm not familiar with their stuff except in a very broad sense
Penrose was older and studied before Hawking, so your question has multiple aspects.
@@gordonrichardson2972 Thx stand corrected. makes sense your way..lol.
@@stephenoconnor6180 i see now,.