New physics theory: Singularities could be everywhere -- And they might explain dark matter
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2024
- 🤓Expand your scientific horizon on Brilliant! ➜ First 200 to use our link brilliant.org/sabine will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
Ok, I have seen a lot of weird ideas for what dark matter could be, but this one surprised even me. A team of researchers proposes that the universe might be filled with singularities, or more precisely "primordial naked singularities," and those could make up what we call dark matter. I had a look at the paper, because if nothing else, it's a fun idea.
The paper is here: arxiv.org/abs/2401.14431
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics 
Наука
These naked singularities are formed in the clothes dryer to disappear my socks
They’re embarrassed by being called naked. So they steal your socks.
I like the idea that for every sock that enters a black hole, a tupperware lid exits a white hole
The socks have quantum tunnelled to an alternate universe and probably ain’t coming back.
People are always accusing the dryer but not the washer.
@@JorgetePaneteTWO lids for every one sock 😩
3 possibilities
1. Naked Singularities are observable, they just aren't that attractive.
2. Naked singularities are a source of depravity, which is like gravity, but dark.
3. Naked singularies cause consciousness. The theory is infinitely transparent, infinitely dense, and it collapses into itself.
Nobel me.
Noble prize, yep😂
This begs for an extension to the standard model in which singularities have a new quantum property that we'll call "gender." Naked female singularities will be attractive, and male ones will have depravity. Definitely fermions, since two females can't occupy the same place without causing trouble.
@@lwmarti Femions?
Absolute brilliance!
I love the cynicism. Oh, the creativity they can come up with. And the lack of reason, that is swept under the carpet to make formulas work. I think, that many physicists should rather be artists or musicians. At least, I wouldn't feel so lonely in producing something nobody cares about, but is still recognised as time spent reasonably.
Singularities ...that' s a curious plural.
Like "Units".
Or panties.
Unifications.
Think physics, not English language. 🤷♀
@@DanielJones-wj7mm 🦓
Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges wrote about a naked singularity in a short tale named The Aleph. It was located in a cellar, under the stairs in the house of a friend who was also a writer, and it was situated in such a way that if you put your head in a certain position, you could see everything. And everything as in EVERYTHING at once.
Wouldn't your head disappear and be sucked into it FOR EVER? Wouldn't your cellar, house & all? Huh?
Everything, what?
Sounds very interesting. I like how the story is named Aleph....the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Wonder why.
@@arielperez797 I can't be sure of sarcasm, so: It's because ℵ is used by mathematics for infinity, with a subscript eg: ℵ₀ to indicate the type of infinity, where the Aleph-Zero (or Aleph-Null) is the normal (smallest) infinity often represented by "1,2,3 ...".
@@boring7823 No no sarcasm bro. I love Hebrew for some reason. I'm not even Jewish.
And thanks for that! I did not know that about Aleph being infinity. They usually use Greek letters.
Another interesting thing about the letter Aleph is that it is silent sometimes. If there isn't a vowel next to it....Aleph is silent.
I'm sure the sauce is fine.
I like my hollandaise HOT
@@ezraclark7904 Jail cell is waiting for you.
Garlic is synonymous with naked singularity groove.
An immersion blender is the solution to sauce where the density is not uniform. ❤
PHD in Science but only two GCSE's in Domestic Science, Roda!?!
Naked singularities are too shy to be detected.
They better not to be shy,
they are naked🤭🤭
Then why don't they just put on a horizon or something?
When on an interesting date and I get naked I suddenly become a singularity. And the event horizon gets infinitely large. There, I said it.
@@JZsBFF Jajaja
When they are detected they are blurry due to censorship rulings.
Make sure that the butter you add to the egg yolks is just warm, not hot. This is what often causes the undesirable density fluctuations in hollandaise sauce.
Also, removing the sauce from the double boiler or heat frequently when whisking to keep the yolks from cooking through also helps with a more evenly distributed density profile.
I love that I now know why my sauce was messed up by reading a youtube comment about astro-level-physics
For most people I've observed the biggest problem is not having a whisk with a curve closely matched to the pan leaving lumps to build in places then be scraped off.
I think Sabine's "Lumpy Hollandaise Model" of the universe explains everything. LHM for the win!
3:47 Sabine is my favorite German standup comic.
@@brutusduran8592There's Henning Wehn and ... um ... um ... I'll get back to you.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha And Elon Mask!
I don't eat German sausages, because they are the wurst.
Lol@@byrons1339
What do you call an angry German: sauerkraut.
Maybe black holes can’t completely evaporate through Hawking radiation. Maybe they become a naked singularity below a certain threshold of mass. Maybe the concept of „escape velocity“ becomes meaningless once you’re at the quantum scale
Maybe, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump there ash when they jump.
Nothing evaporates?!?!?!
Hawking radiation does require a minimum gravitational curvature... With increasing improbability as the curvature decreases... So yes, kind of.
Hawking radiation hasn't been observed, it is only a theory. It depends on an event horizon, but those also haven't been proven to exist.
@@jerramygipson6560 about Hawking radiation - true, but regarding event horizons we have literally taken pictures of two of those - well, technically pictures of their shadows, since it's not something you can see directly - so I'm not sure how much more evidence would you need to accept them as proven to exist.
Thank you very much, Dr Hossenfelder (& team). Very interesting explanations. As always!
I do love your tongue in cheek humor. Thx again interesting info.
As a physicist that isn't currently working as a physicist, I just assumed that all other physicists already considered this as a possibility. I was chatting with my fellow students about this years ago. I think we have all considered this a possibility at some point.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear because matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
it has zero scientific validity or evidence.. and just like most physics since the 1980,,s pointless
dark matter is air.. in space dark matter is helium and hydrogen.. no signs of dark matter doenst mean anything.. theres no sign of air on mt everest or 2 miles higher..but its there.. @@shawns0762
hawkings was wrong..admitted he was reong and disavowed most of his theories on blackholes before he died @@Nulli_Di
Probably those who published the paper used to be someone like you: always considered it possible, but are now equipped to properly investigate!
My theory is that Sabine is learning how the algorithm works while staying true to science.
And then she'll publish a paper!
@@diversionbob8482About the quantum properties of hollandaise sauce? 😋
Maybe it was conscientiousness towards her audience, elicited by feedback... I'm just guessing...
IDK, her weather reports leave much to be desired but at least she doesn't report on ufos & ets like her goofball friend Brian. But hey she's got nearly 1.5 mm subscribers, so whatever she's cooking up in that cauldron she's doing something right.
@@melaniecampbell7055 Brian Cox?
I'm not a physicist, but I do have a question: wouldn't these make traveling around the cosmos very dangerous? You could zip along in a spaceship and fly right into one of these, since they are not directly observable. Obviously, we are not there yet, and may never get there, but this certainly seems to put a damper on interstellar travel.
The economy and the hostility of space puts a damper on interstellar travel more than anything.
This would just be another hostile aspect.
If we started to import meaningful amounts of metals and stuff from space we'd soon warm the atmosphere just as much as burning fossil fuels due to loss of potential energy in the gravity well.
That leaves knowledge to import and that is not economically viable.
Please read the essay "High frontier redux" by Charles Stross to appreciate the hostility of space, even before naked singularities should be a worry.
No, they would be very weakly interacting, as they are effectively a point, so it's extremely difficult for any particle to actually encounter them in a meaningful way.
If those naked singularities work as dark matter, they doesn't interact wit ordinary matter, except by gravity.
So, no they aren't black holes making matter disappear.
I assume!
They're much too tiny to matter if you run into them - because you're mostly empty space. Like neutrinos, they'd pass right through you, and your spaceship.
They don't have an event horizon, so they don't have a point of no return.
Good work scientists. thanks Dr. Lady. Sabine. great report.
'Dark matter' is not dark, rather invisible, dark matter is an 'expansion substance' a property of the Aether\Ether (known descriptively as Space-Time by modern scientists), and this has the property that it also expands every solar system, every galaxy and the entire universe. Black matter is therefore an expanding matter, so to speak.
note:
Black holes can only form in the realm of matter (material structure of the Aether), because only in this realm are the necessary conditions available through which they can form.
In the other matter-less universe realms (so called Dark matter and Fine\Energy state of 'matter') the formation of black holes is not possible.
The Dark Matter in the entire universe is about seven (×7) times more in terms of mass than the total mass of all other forms of matter.
'Dark Matter' is an expanding substance or physical property of the Aether, but on the other hand only through 'Dark Matter' is gravity possible and can function.
Dark matter is an interactive mass, which means that it has massive particles which - measured in the atomic range - have an enormous weight.
These massive particles have an interaction that is related to both gravity and expansion force (repulsion force - the great force that causes the Universe to expand!), which is why dark matter is an expansion matter and 'gravity' matter.
So without the dark matter there would be neither centrifugal force nor gravity.
So without gravity no expansion substance can exist, and without expansion matter no gravity.
Both factors, centrifugal force and gravity, are everywhere, but they are only perceptible and therefore also measurable, but not visible, because they radiate neither light nor darkness visible to the eye.
All coarse material (matter) of all kinds renews itself, thus creating new galaxies, stars and planets etc.
During this transformation, which takes place over a period of about 2 billion years, certain residues remain, which are also deposited in the transition zone and in the matter realm as dark energy and as particulate dark matter, which can be captured and measured using special techniques.
This Dark Matter therefore has a much higher age than the actual coarse-matter of the visible matter (that reflects light) or the visible part of the universe, which erroneously is called the universe, although this matter realm only makes up a seventh (1/7th) part of the total structure of the universe.
Dark matter also plays a certain role, especially with regard to the transport of the stars' "hot" energy (radiation), because without the influence of dark matter this would not be possible.
'Dark matter' and 'black holes' exist in almost incalculable numbers throughout the universe, and also in free space. Black holes contain vast amounts of 'dark matter'.
Of course there are singularities everywhere. We get reminded every valentine's day 😊
what?
@@alienspecies6872it's called humor
@@greenytoaster 💀
Are you trying to say that all we single people are infinitely dense? 😅
@@DannyJoh bro stop roasting
I looked at the paper. They are talking about collapse of a radially symmetric cloud of dust. The density is a function of the distance from the center only. Apparently some density distributions give you a naked singularity when it collapses.
Previously the only stories with naked singularities I knew about had either high spin or high charge. This is not either of those. The dust is uncharged and, if it is radially symmetric, it is not spinning.
In principle, we could build one. I see physics simulations crash with NaNs propagating through space often enough that I suspect maybe we shouldn't.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear because matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
@@shawns0762 Whatever does exist is the elektron. A very valuable something.
Not a Number... I have a demotivator pinned to my office wall behind me, showing a lake with an unexplainable void pulling all the water in, saying: "Undefined. You divided by zero, didn't you?"
@@RemotelySkilled Modeling division using physical systems clearly shows as the divisor approaches zero (0) the quotient value approaches denominator value and the remainder approaches 0. eg 1/0=1
@@shawns0762 Be aware that Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates do a fine job of describing a black hole except for the singularity in the middle. The event horizon is a singularity when you use Schwarzhchild coordinates, but it is a coordinate singularity, not a real one.
For example, flat 2d space can be described with polar coordinates. This is a coordinate singularity when the radius is zero, but not a real singularity because you can also describe it with Cartesian coordinates. In contrast, if you are describing a cone, the singularity at the point is real.
You always make me smile, Sabine!
I learn so much about science from Sabine. Great channel and she makes it entertaining as well
I seem to recall naked singularities being used in SF for everything from electricity generation to an ultra efficient spaceship drive. There was even a joke ad in Analog Magazine that advertised them as the perfect way to dispose of household garbage. I want one.
I keep hoping for some sort of physics breakthrough like that which would make deep space accessible. Warp drive, tachyons, negative mass, anything like that to make a mathematically sound loophole around light speed.
@@bradysmith4405
Good stories are a joy, but space is a hostile place and the economy doesn't check out.
Even with a breakthrough there will "only" be knowledge to import.
Don't get me wrong, that would be totally cool, but we are facing existential crises here on Earth.
Dreaming about the equivalent of dragons and magic won't save us.
Please read the essay "High frontier redux" by Charles Stross to get perspective on space travel.
@@bradysmith4405 I'm afraid i have some bad news then. Even if you had negative mass and were able to construct a warp drive of some kind, you still need to figure out a way to accelerate it to faster than the speed of light.
@@thundersheild926 doesn’t negative mass always travel above light speed, like a tachyon? Yes there would still probably be challenges in figuring things out. But then again we see the universe expanding at a rate effectively 3x faster than light so there’d have to be a way to replicate that
@@thundersheild926 plus even near light speed travel would allow travel to the nearest few stars
Hey, that sounds like a copmletely edible _Hollandaise_ sauce
Love this explanation. Never heard this before. ❤
I love her delivery. Very humble
Imagine a black hole with a charge so large and/or spin near the speed of light it cancel out it's own gravity that would be crazy
Extremal black holes (either charge or spin) I'm sure have been studied quite a lot, so that "canceling" doesn't work I'm afraid. Extremal black holes are used in various theories to argue for the weak gravity conjecture.
@@ianstopher9111 I thought this is where "naked" singularity hypothesis come from is it not?
Aren’t these called kugelblitz or white holes? Or am I confusing it with something else?
its a theory.. nothing has been STUDIED @@ianstopher9111
@@jimby812 no white holes are the opposite they eject matter constantly
Thank you for finally doing this story! Naked Singularities would also be called Planck Mass black holes, where their event horizon is the Planck Length.
Once i saw a singularity in my bathroom
im not kidding
poop jokes are fun
@@AMPProf Who thought of a toilet? No one did but you. If you search for "luxury bathroom" in Google images, none contains a toilet.
Poop jokes are not fun. Poor minds have poor ideas.
You would only truly know if you stuck your head in it and looked out.
@@MadRat70 He maybe have put his test particles into it and saw them returning...
I, for one, am extremely interested in your follow-up on this topic. (After they write the next paper, of course).
I have thought for a while that dark matter was just black holes. Is there anyone way at all, in all of science, that a black hole would not produce a lot of meaningful 'gravitational lensing'? I feel like I am right* if I could just explain this.
I'm just a scientific layman but I thought I had a fairly good grasp on modern scientific thinking. I'm going to have to do more research on these, "naked singularities." I can normally follow along with you but I got lost today.
Probably became it's yet another fairy tale from theoretical physicists.
Just a black hole that has already sucked in anything close enough that had formed or could have formed an accretion disk.
Like a planet that has cleared its orbit.
@@charliedulin You described a dormant black hole, not a naked singularity.
@@MewPurPur could you describe the difference then for me and johnallen6945's
Ok so ive looked at the difference. If it doesnt have an event horizon then light etc can escape. So how would they be dark matter? We, in my understanding, should be able to see them easier than dormant black holes.
Well, I've pondered the idea that perhaps all matter is made from tiny black holes ever since I was a little kid and first heard of black holes, so if this is anything like that, maybe it's not so new. In case you're wondering, my childhood idea, which I still hold, was that the probability of a ray of light actually hitting the tiny central matter of the black hole and being absorbed was so low that it explained reflection and refraction. I've added a lot more ideas to that idea now, but I'm not a scientist.
The idea that electrons are tiny black holes does exist (look up Black Hole Electron) but it is currently incompatible with quantum mechanics. Physics does get weird at those scales though so you never know
I have had the same thought. The counter argument is that other forces are much stronger than gravity when talking about the normal matter that composes us. I find that the counter argument does not succeed in refuting the idea, however. The strength of the other forces maybe plays a role in preventing tiny singularities from consuming everything and growing into large black holes. If matter were composed of tiny singularities, it could explain some quantum behavior in a ways that are more simple to understand. When the energy in a naked singularity gets out of balance to where the repulsive forces become stronger than gravity, it would briefly or perhaps instantly decompose from being a singularity, release a fixed amount of mass/energy to stabilize, and then reestablish itself as a naked singularity. Perhaps the nakedness of the singularity is simply that it is right on the edge of decomposing, allowing it to have these types of interactions. I expect that when we finally do fully understand the experiments that quantum physics is based on, we will have explanations that are similarly simple to this idea.
that is 3 contradictory statements in one..all of which are not supported by any science..
weird is not a scientific term nor is it a scientific description.. scale has nothing to do with laws of the universe.. either its compatible with all other laws or is not.. its NOT..@@Orimanus
thats makes absolutely zero mathematical or physics sense..its a great star trekkie theory with ZERO scientific evidence @@yahm0n
Thanks for alerting us to a new explanation.
Maybe one of these ideas will provide some impetus to find better and newer data to lead to a new hypothesis even if the original purpose is not served.
has she made a video explaning in more details about naked singularities? if not it would be nice to see an explanation and some theories about it, i found naked singularities a very interesting topic that might be important in future discoveries so it would be nice a video about it
Very COOL top, Sabine! And thank you for the detailed explanation.
Primordial Singles? People that were single before social media, and still are.
😂
Hi Sabine. I would love to hear more about naked singularities, specifically how would it be possible that they would not have an event horizon; it just does not make sense to me how they would not acquire an event horizon at after their formation. Not saying that I do not believe it is not a valid solution, I just really do not understand it and would love to learn this and how they might actually form
Thanks Sabine! What credence do you give to sub-GeV DM particles? I think they’re just particles but lighter than WIMPs (they could be axions as well as ~eV particles)
About 04:57
_It must add up to 4 times that of the normal matter._
It's hilarious to call the minority of all matter in the universe "normal".
Not everyone uses "normal" in the statistical sense. Normal in this context means, "The stuff that makes up all of the things we can see."
Technically it's called "baryonic" dark matter, but the word tends to raise more questions than it answers. It's "normal" in the sense that it's the stuff that we know.
Astronomy is suddenly losing some panache, as an exact science... astrology even comes to mind.
I always say "familiar matter" for just this reason. Dark matter is the normal kind, we're made of the weird kind. Which should surprise no one.
@@SkorjOlafsen😆
As a non-physicist, it seems more likely to me that our formulas for gravity are wrong rather than dark matter exists. On a planetary scale, Newtonian physics works, on a stellar scale, Einstein's physics works. But on a galactic scale,, gravity works on a different formula with some extra variable.
ahaha dark matter is AIR..it should be aslled clear matter.. dark/clear matter is helium and hydrogen in outerspace air... its thin but its there.. its more than all stars and bodies in the universe..
gravity works perfectly as designed.. if you take a single rod shaped cone of the universe from center to outer.. everything is FALLING to the outside.. in all directions.. it has reached its terminal velocity.. in all directions..
everything is falling in all directions.. it agrees with EVERY calculation of perfect gravity.. these fools waste their imaginations on star trekkie nothingnesses
Before we even question Einstein's formulae, shouldn't we ask; how accurate are the mass calculations of galaxies to begin with? There's so much baryonic matter we can't detect. For example, we can barely detect exo-satellites - or extra-galactic planets for that matter. Heck, even the theoretical Oort cloud is yet to actually seen or measured - and if it exists, most systems likely have one of those, too. In other words - if it doesn't glow, we can detect it only by mere luck (i.e. it passing past a star).
@PenguinDT My understanding is that the problem is stars orbiting too fast on the outer edges of the galaxy, and too slow near the center. It seems obvious to me that if this is the case, that stars drag each other along in the disc. James Web is in a Legrange point where it is orbiting the sun too fast and the earth too slow, Saturn's rings are tidally locked to one other where outer material moves too fast and inner material moves too slow. A disc of stars would be gravitational bound to each other, not to the "core". A star in the core would have the mass of the galaxy pulling it equally in all directions and would be weightless, motionless. Stars orbit faster near the edge of the disc because there is more mass below them, stars nearer the center orbit slower because there is less mass below them, and all of the stars are tidally locked to their neighbors so the entire disc is partially locked together.
I assume physicists know this, because it's obvious enough for me to figure it out, but I know that they can't simulate it because it is an "n-body simulation" problem. Computers cannot accurately model systems with more than two gravitationally significant bodies, and a galaxy has billions.
Not only gravity, but mass, distance, space-time, photons, and energy are not well understood on galactic scales. I have personally never believed that the 'expansion of the universe' is exponential, because that theory uses the redshift as it's metric, and our understanding of the properties of photons on those space-time scales is not great (IMO). As far as the supposed 'fact' that 74% of matter and 22% of energy are 'missing', I think that it boils down to "well, our theories say this, and we think they are right, so there must be some other explanation". It seems that they assume that 'empty space' is truly empty, not thinking that even, say, a grain of sand in every cubic kilometer of the universe could account for all that 'missing' mass and energy, and would have little to no observable effect on the surrounding matter or space. Or, perhaps, there is the all-mysterious black holes, which they assume follow the same laws of physics as everything else in the universe, even though, truly, we have no idea what they are or how they affect space, time, energy, mass, ect, ect. I'm probably wrong, but I don't think they are right either.
This kind of content is the best content on your channel.
How about topping off these amazing videos with a 30 or 45 second blooper real at the end? You nail so much so fast, I am sure you have some do overs for each video. Or maybe you are able to do these in one take? Keep up the great work, it is very much appreciated.
Huh, those naked singularities sound a lot like micro-singularities, which were brought up in the show Enterprise.
They are the deus ex machina to protect another deus ex machina or
How to explain the existence of unicorns with the use of Goblins.
Just imagine the level of distortion this would create.
btw I like your comment , as the show was most likely the inspiration for the theory.
The problem I’ve always had with the idea of naked singularities is that how could they not have an event horizon? If the mass is sufficient for form a singularity, then again, just like a black hole, there will be a point where light can’t escape, and that’s the equivalent of a black hole. Actually, it is a black hole. I’ve never seen a good explanation otherwise. When I took physics back in the late 1960s to early 1970s, these questions were t really there as it was all so rarely discussed and speculative that even black holes were new enough so that not much was understood.
I'll second that. I've just read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity to get a better understanding, but it still eludes me. Seems to be a quite complex phenomenon.
So I've found a video from another physics channel (PBS Space Time), that I regularly watch, to try to explain the concept: ruclips.net/video/1Z5fnwUmTSY/видео.html . However, it mostly explains by which ways a naked singularity can NOT form, so it's still somewhat elusive. But I hope you still find it interesting!
For the example of a singularity with superextremal angular momentum, the frame dragging is sufficient that the inner and outer ergospheres pass through each other, which necessarily means that the event horizon disappears.
regardless of how much mass you have, angular momentum pushes things away from center. when angular momentum is higher than that massive gravity pull, you can have a high enough mass to form a singularity, and yet have enough spin to spin things out, it might remove the event horizon (if it starts spinning fast enough, the 'mass of the singularity' would be pulled out to the stable state roughly in equilibrium with the previous event horizon radius)... in which case I would posit that interacting with singularity would be like interacting with an impossibly fast spinning neutron star.
that's a layman's guess. but light not being able to escape, is a feature of black holes, not the definition, sufficiently collapsed mass is what a singularity is... but there are a few other forces at work than gravity in a black hole. charge and spin being the big other two. light being able to escape is not inherently impossible, just not easily understandable with what black hole physics we've readily observed.
General Relativity, especially at the extremes, takes our intuition and just laughs. If the math says naked singularities are possible, I'm inclined to believe it. Of course, knowing what math that complex actually says is a challenge in its own right, so :shrug:.
Thanx ,,,very relavent& exciting thought .Good insight.↩️↪️
One of the reasons I love to watch Sabine's videos is to hear "...dark matter, if it exists. Which it may not."
Why do the naked singularities lack an event horizon?
Are they spinning at the speed of light?
We just make shit up. It's dumb. I'm pretty sure the religion that created peer review ended up tying itself in knots with its most agreed upon explanation too.
It wasn't religion that was the problem, tho we pretend it is, it's actually just people. The two share the same 'problem'.
There is no singularities. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear because matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
@@jedahnImagine thinking Peer Review is a religion, instead of the associated societal problems that make poor quality peer reviews. It’s like claiming food as a religion for all the dietician bs out there.
The most obvious answer would be that the width of any Event Horizon is less than a Planck Length and, as such, too small to yield any "real" effect. In other words, it's not _really_ that it has "no" Event Horizon, it's that _light_ is *too big* to _enter_ the Event Horizon.
and youd be wrong..as usual.. again @@omargoodman2999
Love this channel. Keep it up and keep at that Hollandaise sauce! You'll get it eventually!
Love all of your content, and that shirt is v sweet!
How do you find these interesting papers ? Its amazing how you find interesting content everyday.
I'd be interested in an explanation of the different processes that yield either a black hole or a naked singularity. Why is there no horizon for such an extreme curvature?
Isn't it much odder that there *is* such a thing as a horizon? The horizon is not a matter of curvature. In fact the curvature at the horizon can be arbitrarily small. The horizon is the boundary of a region from which light cannot exit. Why does space-time create such a thing?
@@SabineHossenfelder Isn't it inferred from mere extrapolation of increasing escape velocity with increasing gravitational strength?
Black hole horizons have always weirdes me out. I find the idea that some essentially continuous distortion of spacetime as the black hole forms should introduce a discontinuity into the reachability of future space from some other space where no discontinuity existed before unsettlimg. I feel like the idea that in some sense there is a continuous change in spacetime that leads to an instantaneous event where the topology of what can be reached through spacetime changes.
@@SabineHossenfelder I find it still faszinating that you can easily calculate a Black Hole with a gravity field as strong as that on Earth's surface at its event horizon. It will be huge, but not impossibly large, compared with some galactic centers.
@@SabineHossenfelder that the curvature can be arbitrarily small *at the horizon* is an interesting point. Is this a sum over all possible future paths of a photon question, like the double slit experiment maybe?
My everyday logic:
If the event horizon of a BH is made of nothing, how can exist an object without nothing or even can be differentiated from an object WITH nothing?
To see the singularity, it has to send out light, what is impossible because of the gravitational field of the singularity. Phew, I think that´s beyond my mental horizon. Anyway, wonderful video again😊🌹
A black hole is not an object, it's just space. The horizon is the boundary of a region, the region from within which light cannot escape. A naked singularity has no horizon, so light can escape from nearby it.
@@SabineHossenfelderIf light can escape nearby, the naked singularity has less mass than a primordial BH? but then it would be simply a very very tiny BH. The other possibility: it´s all about math. 🖖
Perhaps I'm wrong but that is the way I had imagined a naked singularity, as the limiting case of a black hole. Add more mass and the event horizon would form and we would have a legitimate black hole.
@@noelwass4738 A naked singularity also has mass.
@@Thomas-gk42 Black holes and naked singularities can have any mass. I don't know what this has to do with the question whether light can escape from nearby, the latter is really just a question of the causal connectivity of space, it's nothing to do with the mass.
Thank you for making science fun and interesting 🤔
Funny and a brilliant science communicator, I wish I found her channel long ago!
Yes. Implausible. Like many recent papers made into media articles thanks to overenthusiastic press releases.
To be fair, most of them are far less plausible than this one!
@SabineHossenfelder does plausibility have a specific scientific meaning, and if so, can it survive into "foundational" thinking?
It seems to me like math as a language has both flexible (consensus axioms, reimann spheres) and inflexible structures otherwise.
With reliable observations defying our would-be natural axioms without those observations, what can be said about the plausibility of "the mathematical story" (looking for what's mathematically missing in a model) vs "the story of slight mathematician bias" (select those "well-behaved" axioms which allow more maths)?
When the universe "misbehaves," I feel like we can't help but get a little sloppy ourselves.
@@alieninmybeverage I don't think it has a well-defined meaning, but loosely speaking I measure plausibility by the number of new assumptions that need to be made. In this case, it's very few. We know that the plasma in the early universe had fluctuations that could have produced black holes, it just seems that it didn't. We do not know of any reason why naked singularities should be impossible. So its possible they were formed in that early plasma. I'm not sure why no one asked that question earlier. You don't really need to assume anything new, it's rather that you throw out one assumption, which is that naked singularities for some unknown reason don't exist.
@@alieninmybeverageGödel (1931)
@Manuel_Bache thank you. Do you have a particular sequence of his theories, proofs or definitions to recommend regarding plausibility?
I'll go ahead and admit to the kind of hole I expect to find in formal logic and math: that the concept of sufficiency is poorly justified in light of modern biological/neurological consequences. That any resource/capacity agnostic theory will presume a formal role for sufficiency when "actual" sufficiency is, for the sake of brevity, "heuristical."
The result, I anticipate and intend to investigate, might be that an "assumption" can be countable or of a counterfactual magnitude (proportional resistance for example), but never both without incurring a paradox. Too much to unpack in a comment, obviously!
Really glad scientists are talking about this, after all, I made it up in a novel I'm publishing later this year
I also guessed invisible singularities since they have gravity and they're invisible. It's probably quantum hurricanes feeding on vacuum pressure just to mess with us though. Reality is contrarian.
This is similar to an idea we had over wine many years back at PI. It would be fun to read over this math.
I thank you Sabine. Keeping up with the new fashions in science, is not easy. I've seen so many technological changes in my life. Theoretical thinking by a human brain, at the vastness of the universe, and how it came to be, was realised by the ancient people of Australia. I've seen water turn into steam. I've seen water turn into ice. I had mated a life time ago, with a female who has 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while I the male, have 22. Two children were born. The reason our children are artistic and employed is due to the parents input. I failed many times, my children learnt. If my children failed, I would ask their mum for help, and together we would recover and improve. The universe is a word. I will give my life to save my children. So the beat may go on. Discovering, learning and exploiting are the things that even fungie do. In the scheme of life, my one purpose was to have off-spring that would survive me. I am a lucky man. Oops. Singularity is like 0 =1. It is empty, yet it is there. Empty. What is it empty of? I thank the people that kept the knowledge alive, while my ancestors migrated and found new homes. The universe is in my brain.
Roger Penrose called them timelike singularities because you can escape one by traveling along time-like (normal massive objects) world-lines.
Thank you for the video. Black holes do not contain a singularity.
How do you know?
@@SabineHossenfelder there is no evidence that black holes contain a singularity.
@@eonasjohn That doesn't mean there isn't one ^^
@@SabineHossenfelder Holographic information principle, planckscale/ 1 bit of information. Information introduces scale.
Black holes/singularities are based on a mathematical misconception. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear because matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
Nice parallel with sauce reference. It was a bit refreshing to sample other forms of adjectives in lieu of commonly used types. 😅😅😅 This has sparked some primordial things in me with making any conversation that doesn't focus on me...
Can you make a video explaining more about the difference between a black hole and a naked singularity? I don't quite understand the difference and how it works. If the singularity has enough mass that nearby particles cannot escape, then there has to be an event horizon? So are naked singularities just very small so that particles can still "get out"?
ahahahhahaha neither do they..its made up THEORIES
You need to meet my wife , she is one hell of a singularity
I like the lack of sound effects
Information is NOT lost:
Nothing escapes from a blackhole because nothing fell in there in the first place. All things are spaghettified while long way away. Hence matter starts to get accelerated to the speed of light, and by the time that is attained, matter and all information has changed into energy -photons . Photons then escape towards me and that is why I may see the bright blackhole in the night sky.
Thanks for this video.
I'm a 'crank' and I've been saying for years that naked singularities are everywhere. I believe the Higgs detection was a naked singularity and that naked singularities form when we smash two protons together. I also have this theory of electron densities being gravitational fields, that gravitational fields are formed of perpetually tunneling electrons. These electrons release photons giving rise to the Casimir force and the cosmological constant, because they're always tunneling, they're always interacting with photons; this phenomena of electrons always interacting with photons (or electrons interacting with photons roughly once every unit of the Planck time) gives rise to decoherence in nature and when the photons interacts with the background electron, the electron collapses into a naked singularity.
Very interesting. Could you tell me more regarding naked singularities? Please.
I thought of this 10 years ago. I imagined if there are singularities or small black holes everywhere, they would be "pulling" space and time such that mass would be "missing" and also I thought maybe it would be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe in every direction. 😊
Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. I got one in size XL. I hope it will fit. ;-)
An analogy to get an intuition of a naked "singularity": consider a function like
1/sqrt(abs(x)) in a neighborhood of 0. Even if the function goes to infinite around 0, the
area under its curve (integral) around 0, does not goes to infinite. So even if a
potential goes to infinite (negative) in a point, the energy to get out of that point
is not infinite, so things can escape the potential even if it goes to -infinite at that
point (naked singularity). So even if energy density goes to infinite, it could generate a
potential that goes or does not goes to infinite, and even if the potential goes to infinite
it could or could not generate an event horizon. Of course, things are not so simple,
because we are not taking into account space curvature, or the fact that there is a maximum
speed and energy per gravitational mass etc. etc., but you can have an intuitive idea
of how a continuous general relativity theory can lead to naked "singularities".
Of course, all this is "theoretical" because space-time is NOT continuous, so, in
reality, "naked" singularities do not exist, but neither "singularities" or
"event horizons". Black holes only exist as a phenomenon we do not
understand and approximate by an abstract concept that cannot be more than a very
coarse approximation.
None of these "fantasies" will solve the real problems of today "physics". Physicists
are full of "fantasies", that is, things like this idea that does not imply true
imagination (enyone with a grasp of the topic can "fantasize" with naked singularities,
multiple dimensions, multiple universes, etc. etc.). What is needed is true imagination,
that implies new ways of thinking, but not "free" imagination that is easy, need
"imagination" without breaking the most basic logic, without magical thinking (Gods), without
"wishful thinking" (wormholes, warp engines etc. etc.), without marketing or catastrophism,
but with enough detail as to be testable and falsifiable.
Thank you
It’s also worth noting that Hawking and Suskind collaborated on a version of the net zero energy universe hypothesis. Their model claimed gravitational energy was the negative energy required to counter the other energies released in the Big Bang.
After the Hubble volume was determined to have a Gaussian curvature of zero, their model is no longer viable. But if these naked singularities exist they must also be coiling gravitational energy into the field and would work into any equation describing the zero net energy universe hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis, That which we call "Dark Matter" is extra gravity caused by the expansion of the Universe. When anything expands, the fabric that it is made of warps to some degree. Think of the surface of a balloon, when you blow it up (expansion) the rubber of the balloon stretches and gets thinner, it experiences a warping of its fabric, and we all know what happens when you warp the fabric of Spacetime, right? You get gravity. I can't understand how the Universe can be ever expanding without there being some sort of unseen consequence.
Anyway, Sans an actual explanation for "Dark Matter" (I cannot imagine it being actual matter permeating all of the Universe but somehow hiding) I'm gonna go with mine until someone (maybe you) can explain to me how my description is invalid.
If naked singularities exist this may be evidence that the field itself is granular. This would be consistent with the quantum gravity theory. A naked singularity would have very large curvature but not infinite curvature of the field.
Penrose’s singularity theory claims infinite curvature also but because space may be quantized it’s not possible.
Also Penrose’s CCC theory breaks down with quantized space and a singularity according to his description is also impossible. The state he is referring to is the lack of scale. If space is quantized there is inherent scale built into the field itself.
I wonder if some environmental cause can be found between the black holes vs naked singularity, what about just time fluctuations (not space time)? Just spitballing here. Love your videos Sabine thanks
I've never been a fan of dark matter and have written it off as a fudge factor. Naked singularities is hard to wrap my brain around. As in I can grasp that gravity bends light and the intense gravity of a black hole traps light, so how can you still have a massive gravity well and the light escapes it? The theories I've seen talk about adding electrons or changing its angular momentum, but it still goes over my head.
With that sad, I do like this as a solution to the lack of mass. But supposedly we have seen "gravitational lensing" around areas where we think there is a lot of dark matter. Does a naked singularity still have gravitational lensing?
Another thought I had on this. What about wormholes? How do wormholes effect gravity? Say there are naturally forming wormholes, does mass on the opposite sides of a wormhole have a gravitational interaction with objects on this side? Can a mass exude a gravitational pull on itself through a wormhole?
Hi Sabine, what's the minimum mass a black hole must have to have an event horizon? And what's the minimum mass a black hole must have in order not to evaporate in a few billion years?
Minimum is 1.
It'd be nice if you could make an explainer on naked singularities, because I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my brain about how infinite density can exist and yet NOT form an event horizon.
It's been 40 years since I took a course in Nuclear Physics, but your channel helps me to keep up w/ the advances in knowledge since then. A bit off topic, but I have a comment involving Metaphysics: I have a theory that when electrons change valence state and travel through hyperspace, they enter the presence of God allowing Him to know the state of the entire universe in real time. This would explain the omniscience of the Creator of the Universe.
Keep us posted!
I still see this as a theory that is derivative to the existence of singularities in the first place, which is still unproven. *My* questions about black holes are
- Do we know if any matter actually falls into black holes, or if everything shoots out of its jets?
- Do we know if the horizon has anything to do with the matter inside of the black hole, or if it's just an artifact of no light being able to escape, while the matter inside it is relatively unchanged or is just a region of space we can't see?
- Do we know if black holes really grow or shrink over time? Have we actually measured a single instance of a black hole being more or less massive compared to our first measurement of it?
Split-complex numbers relate to the diagonality (like how it's expressed on Anakin's lightsaber) of ring/cylindrical singularities and to why the 6 corner/cusp singularities in dark matter must alternate.
Dual numbers relate to Euler's Identity, where the thin mass is cancelling most of the attractive and repulsive forces. The imaginary number is mass in stable particles of any conformation. In Big Bounce physics, dual numbers relate to how the attractive and repulsive forces work together to turn the matter that we normally think of into dark matter.
Complex numbers = vertical asymptote. Split-complex numbers = vertical tangent. Dual numbers = vertical line. These algebras can be simply thought of as tensors. Delanges sectrices can be thought of as opposites of vertical asymptotes. Ceva sectrices as opposites of vertical tangents, and Maclaurin sectrices as opposites of vertical lines.
The natural logarithm of the imaginary number is pi divided by 2 radians times i. This means that, at whatever point of stable matter other than at a singularity, the attractive or repulsive force being emitted is perpendicular to the "plane" of mass.
In Big Bounce physics, this corresponds to how particles "crystalize" into stacks where a central particle is greatly pressured to degenerate by another particle that is in front, another behind, another to the left, another to the right, another on top, and another below. Dark matter is formed quickly afterwards.
Ramanujan Infinite Sum (of the natural numbers): during a Big Crunch, the smaller, central black holes, not the dominating black holes, are about a twelfth of the total mass involved. Dark matter has its singularities pressed into existence, while baryonic matter is formed by its singularities. This also relates to 12 stacked surrounding universes that are similar to our own "observable universe" - an infinite number of stacked universes that bleed into each other and maintain an equilibrium of Big Bounce events.
i to the i power: the "Big Bang mass", somewhat reminiscent of Swiss cheese, has dark matter flaking off, exerting a spin that mostly cancels out, leaving potential energy, and necessarily in a tangential fashion. This is closely related to what the natural logarithm of the imaginary number represents.
Mediants are important to understanding the Big Crunch side of a Big Bounce event. Black holes have locked up, with these "particles" surrounding and pressuring each other. Black holes get flattened into unstable conformations that can be considered fractions, to form the dark matter known from our Inflationary Epoch. Sectrices are inversely related, as they deal with dark matter being broken up, not added like the implosive, flattened "black hole shrapnel" of mediants.
Ford circles relate to mediants. Tangential circles, tethered to a line.
Sectrices: the families of curves deal with black holes and dark matter. (The Fibonacci spiral deals with how dark matter is degenerated/broken up, with supernovae, and forming black holes. The Golden spiral deals with black holes being flattened into dark matter during a Big Bounce event.) The Archimedean spiral deals with black holes and their spins before and after a reshuffling from cubic to the most dense arrangement, during a Big Crunch. The Dinostratus quadratrix deals with the dark matter being broken up by ripples of energy imparted by outer (of the central mass) black holes, allowing the dark matter to unstack, and the laminar flow of dark matter (the Inflationary Epoch) and dark matter itself being broken up by lingering black holes.
Delanges sectrices (family of curves): dark matter has its "bubbles" force a rapid flaking off - the main driving force of the Big Bang.
Ceva sectrices (family of curves): spun up dark matter breaks into primordial black holes and smaller, galactic-sized dark matter and other, typically thought of matter.
Maclaurin sectrices (family of curves): dark matter gets slowed down, unstable, and broken up by black holes.
Jimi Hendrix's "Little Wing". Little wing = Maclaurin sectrix. Butterflies = Ceva sectrix. Zebras = Dinostratus quadratrix. Moonbeams = Delanges sectrix. Jimi was experienced and "tricky".
Jimi was commenting on dark matter. How it could be destabilized by being slowed down, spun up, broken up by lingering black holes, or flaked off. (The Delanges trisectrix also corresponds to stable atomic nuclei.)
Dark matter, on the stellar scale, are broken up by supernovae. Our solar system was seeded with the heavier elements from a supernova.
I'm happily surprised to figure out sectrices. Trisectrices are another thing. More complex (algebras) and I don't know if I have all the curves available to use in analyzing them. I have made some progress, but have more to discern. I can see Fibonacci spirals relating to the trisectrices.
The Clausen function of order 2: black holes and rarified singularities are becoming more and more commonplace.
Doyle's constant for the potential energy of a Big Bounce event: 21.892876
Also known as e to the (e + 1/e) power.
At the eth root of e, the black holes are stacked as densely as possible. I suspect Ramanujan's Infinite Sum connects a reshuffling from the solution to the Basel problem and a transfer of mass to centralized black holes. Other than the relatively small amount of kinetic energy of black holes being flattened into dark matter, the only energy is potential energy, then: 1 (squared)/(e to the e power), dark matter singularities have formed and thus with the help of Ramanujan, again, create "bubbles", leading to the Big Bang part of the Big Bounce event.
My constant is the chronological ratio of these events. This ratio applies to potential energy over kinetic energy just before a Big Bang event.
Methods of arbitrary angle trisection: Neusis construction relates to how dark matter has its corner/cusp singularities create "bubbles", driving a Big Bang event. Repetitious bisection relates to dark matter spinning so violently that it breaks, leaving smaller dark matter, primordial black holes, and other more familiar matter, and to how black holes can orbit other black holes and then merge. It also relates to how dark matter can be slowed down. Belows method (similar to Sylvester's Link Fan) relates to black holes being locked up in a cubic arrangement just before a positional jostling fitting with Ramanujan's Infinite Sum.
General relativity: 8 shapes, as dictated by the equation? 4 general shapes, but with a variation of membranous or a filament? Dark matter mostly flat, with its 6 alternating corner/cusp edge singularities. Neutrons like if a balloon had two ends, for blowing it up. Protons with aligned singularities, and electrons with just a lone cylindrical singularity?
Prime numbers in polar coordinates: note the missing arms and the missing radials. Matter spiraling in, degenerating? Matter radiating out - the laminar flow of dark matter in an Inflationary Epoch? Corner/cusp and ring/cylinder types of singularities. Connection to Big Bounce theory?
"Operation -- Annihilate!", from the first season of the original Star Trek: was that all about dark matter and the cosmic microwave background radiation? Anakin Skywalker connection?
i actually commented that somewhere on a yt video about crunched spacetime being dark matter. Spacetime
There comes a point where a wide angle lens combined with a mirror theoretically bends light in half hence a point of singularity exists in every digital camera.
As I imagine it, a black hole might be much more susceptible to hawking radiation than naked singularities. Therefore, all tiny black holes radiated away fairly quickly, while all naked singularities stayed for much longer periods of time.
1. The total energy at every point is a constant.
2. There is no such thing as negative energy.
3. Spacetime is the field governing motion.
4. Time is the source of all potential energy.
5. Proper time is a type of spin.
All else follows. There are no infinities. There are no singularities. There are no contradictions. Proper time appears to be left handed, except for antimatter.
This is interesting , I hope that there is follow up.
My question which is probably dumb is where did all the antimatter in the early universe go go? Would antimatter primordial blackholes exert gravity? Dark energy ...both? Just an idea only half way through maybe it is touched on so I'll continue watchin...very interesting video!
more butter and a lot of mixing Sabine!
1:40 "...you just calculate until the number is so large it might as well be infinity." Where does that begin? As far as I know, any finite number, no matter how large, will be closer to 0 than infinity, so at what point do scientists just say, "Anything above this is infinity"?
6:54 Regarding why primordial naked singularities, but not black holes: If they were created with little mass, say, on the order of an elementary particle, the black holes would have evaporated a long time ago. As I understand it, the lack of a horizon would make the naked singularities not subject to Hawking radiation.
That would also explain why we don't observe gravitational lensing. Well, we do, but only as a sum effect of clumps of dark matter.
There is a theory about microscopic/primodial black holes created near the big-bang when the density of the matter would be high enough to allow for it.
Problem is some of those would be nearly "depleted" and are supposed to be "dying" in droves soonish. Such a black hole death is theoretized to be very specific, and verifyable.
Theory was first proposed in 60ties.
They'd be so small, they'd be unable to "eat" normal matter, since event horizon of those BH would be smaller than particle sizes, they'd radiate more energy that they'd consume and eventually would die through Hawking Radiation - what we should be seeing.
Sabine, I'm curious to know: the schwarzchild equations are only approximations. Do we have any estimate of the impact of our using approximations to solve the einstein equations? Is it possible there is a measurable difference on very large scales?
If my recollection is correct, Schwarzchild calculated the simplest type of black hole, which has zero spin and zero charge. It makes sense to call that a special case, rather than an approximation.
5:40 - you missed micro-lensing experements for planet sized BH's (that havn't been seen)
There is only one singularity IMO. It is the 4th spacial dimension. I think it kind of coexists and connects with the other 3 spacial dimensions and is a very short distance away from any point in space. Possibly only one plank length away. I think it is the mechanism by which quantum entanglement works. Nb there is a difference between black holes and the singularity. A black hole isca region undergoing complete gravitational collapse. The matter collapsing never actually reaches the singularity from our view point due to time dilation. There are many black holes each one is collapsing toward the same singularity.
At 5:38, you say we haven’t seen “flashes”, but in fact we have seen them, unexplained gamma-ray bursts for which some models have been suggested but so far not confirmed. For (at least some of) these to be evaporations of primordial black holes (naked or otherwise) depends on the initial density fluctuation spectrum, which is also yet to be settled, e.g., with respect to how fully-formed galaxies and larger-scale black holes could have formed as early in the history of the universe as is being suggested by JWST observations. These depend on the details of the initial Higgs Field geometry if you believe in inflationary cosmology, but they could also arise in alternative cosmologies, as you seem to suggest later on.
As for your Hollandaise sauce: I have always found that inhomogeneity and asymmetry are usually good things in cuisine (e.g., marble cake).
The Rabbit Field Conjecture: Sabine's sauce pot is actually a telescope where the varying density of the Hollandaise maps the distribution of naked singularities in the universe.
1/0 does not equal infinity. 1/0 equals all values from +infinity to -infinity at the same time. This is a vitally important point.
Sabine, concerning collapsing stars:
Have you considered the relatively recent discovery that a significant number of stars (at least 150) seem to have disappeared, were visible on photographic plates but are no longer where they are supposed to be. Possible errors on the plates have been excluded. I think I read this in a NASA publication or website, and I think there is even a database being created.
In the image the sheet is shown to be stretched a lot, could the pull be so great with a really small object that the space time sheet just connects somewhere above the actual singularity?
Interesting thought: Penrose’s CCC being true enough for all of the previous universe’s black holes to be our universe’s Planck sized primordial black holes, and our atoms are too big to fall into them. Hah!
And THIS is why I subscribe to Sabine!