I'm amazed at all the black hole and physics experts there are in the youtube comments sections. I will tell my son to skip out on college and just read youtube comments, they already know everything.
+Mike Morrow Egg-zactly!! lol ... and Mr. Susskind was a plumber before becoming a theoretical scientist. He once explained how everything goes down the black hole like in a toilet bowl (no joke).
I've made that same observation about every comment section. There's always a know-it-all that is all too willing to tell you how you're wrong about something.
it's funny how some people don't give credit for a mans intelligence, all I can say is, just because some people are experts on a subject, doesn't mean they are smart ! as a matter of my opinion, most experts are morons because of a false sense of intelligence. PS. being intelligence is a limitation because it doesn't matter how intelligent people are, what matters is who can see reality the clearest and the more intelligent a person is, the cloudier their view of reality is. I guarantee this
How fortunate the world is to have such great scientists like Dr Leonard and other theorists who can think and theorize for us lesser beings. God bless them
Applying the Black Hole (BH) idea as a metaphor to the question of life after death, we could also say that when the physical body of a person collapses (i.e. the person dies), then that person is lost from the perspective of the living. But the BH idea says that from the perspective of the person drawn inside the BH horizon that person is still fine until sucked by the center of the BH. Actually, nothing enters the siphon of a BH, Susskind says, but is distributed to the surface of the BH horizon in the form of particles which can be projected in space as a hologram. I don’t know how good the BH metaphor is, but it gives a glimpse of hope for life after death.
Qvantum entanglement and holographic projection: all we are is Information: all our organs are projected on the skin of our soles. Ultimately all info that define us is not lost: children, nephews, next generation carry us in future, we are not lost, soul is pure information, bit by bit of electromagnetic oscilation emitted in IR by our body heat and sounds and mechanical actions we carry ultimately project us on EH. Our skin is our EH. We are a De Sittis spaces, our internal organs are projected on our skin and all our thoughts define allbwe are.
Ya know, I've struggled with this and occasionally get a panic attack laying in bed. Now, one way to guarantee you're always alive is to cause a predestination paradox which.. well, only works if you can travel back in time, which theoretically is impossible. However, another thing to consider, is that after you pass, you have all of eternity to come back. 😉 Ya know, infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, something something.
Agree. I exactly think same: generous to share us so accessibly for general nonspecialist public. By all my heart, all my gratitude and my best wishes to our brilliant Professor dr. Leonard Susskind, God bless him! I lost peace and rest since I have discovered him! He troubled, moved me profoundly, goven me a scope to continuu this life, because of dr Sussking my life is not anymore boring but I have not anymore silence in myself....
My instinct tells me that this discussion is absolutely bounded by the accepted, more or less working, theorems that comprise what we currently know about mathematics. I think we are missing a lot to assume that this is correct in any absolute sense, even though it conforms to what we think is correct.
This man explains mad things easy,hes just explained to me the averages joe how a blackhole works! Fascinating and i wish i had the brain to work out maths at this level.
If he actually explained how black holes worked, the video would not be an 1 and half long it would be about 5 seconds, he would state black holes do not exist, holes can never have mass. Shoe another example claim where a hole can have mass, let alone the mass to hold over 400,000,000,000 billon stars in its grip. When he starts calling them dark stars , i will have respect for him, In the images from the EHT( EVENT horizon telescope), That dark circle inside the accretion disk is the dark star , not a singularity. Despite the lunatic hawking their is no radiation from dark stars not thermal or quanta. The fermi bubbles are dark star magnetic field ejections.
No matter how hard one tries, some concepts (particularly ones related to quantum mechanics) simply cannot be "dumbed down." The incomprehensible dance between (black hole) singularities and the information paradox certainly feels like one of them. Ironically, while researching this topic, my brain tends to act much like a black hole to an outside observer. They can watch the information as it approaches my head before catastrophically burning up on the horizon of my brain hole... whereupon they will quietly ponder whether or not such neat information has been lost forever.
I feel engineering level of Phisycs and Mathematics, if revewed as hobby, opens us the Gate to this Incomprehensibily: differetial calculus, operational calculus, logic calculus, analitical geometry, algebra, analiza matematica, all this studency "nonsenses" now, at my retirement, after discovering dr Susskind, get sense!
Ironically this is bit paradoxical too, for indeed the truth of QM is not in human intuition and understanding but the infamous axioms and equation. But Susskin, Feynman, and others strongly emphasize the importance of "visualizing" (in a sense of using the imagination) in drawing insights into physics. There is an art to being able to explain things, and not being able to can pethaps suggest one knows less about something than they might think. I think many physicist are guilty of that, and I think it's telling someone like Susskind who by his own admission is nothing special in mathematics nevertheless is so noted for groundbreaking ideas because he looks at the whole picture
Just because some of you don't believe in this science doesn't mean you have to belittle those who've worked hard to get where they are with all of this information. If you don't believe in it, great. That's your opinion. But don't sit there and imply how idiotic it is. No one knows what's really out there, but these scientists are brave enough to think outside the box. They at the very least deserve respect for their hard work and contribution to this field of science, whether anyone believes in it or not.
Thing is Gracie its not actually science. "Science" is done first with a hypothesis then an experiment to prove the validity of your hypothesis. Then you can develop a theory. The process is called the scientific method. What these guys do with black holes ext. Is skip the whole part about hypothesis and experiment. And without experimental proof it's not science it's only fantasy, however mathematically derived it may be.
Black holes cannot exist by the very nature of a black hole universe, which we do not live in. These people should be ashamed of themselves for not recognizing that black holes cannot exist. These black hole physicists have been pouring their lives into a black hole (metaphorically) all their lives because it simply cannot exist, and NOTHING has been gained from it, but time has been lost by thinking about BH, even my time. ruclips.net/video/hhYsOQTfYEc/видео.html However the Electric Universe model physicists have been making great strides in predicting and explaining effects, occurrences, and objects in space that have baffled the mainstream cosmologists/astrophysicists (people like the black hole scientists) when they're discovered. Examples- -Pulsar Neutron Star? No, stellar object reacting in similar fashion to Relaxation oscillator effects in a plasma. -Comets are "dirty snowballs?" No, rocks (similar looking to chunks of a planet) that are negatively charged, moving closer to a positively charged sun, and discharging to charge equilibrium, which electrically excavates matter from the surface forming the glowing plasma coma and tail in an electrical environment.
"Love isn't something we invented. It's observable, powerful, it has to mean something... Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space." And then of course there's the bookshelf 🙄
if you have ever listened to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he talks about black holes and takes into account Sussex, Hawking, and Einstein, but he also has a theory that the reason the black hole is so massive is because it may be a hole into another universe. This may be true because, there is a theory that we are but a miniscule bubble in an infinitum space of other bubble universes, or a black hole is a super massive wormhole like Professor Michio Kaku has theorised
I like him. He has a lot in common with Professor Steven Hawking. What he says makes sense in an Einsteinian relativistic sense. It's the fusion of astronomy and physics that is inspiring,The event horizon of a black hole is the hologram of everything, to see it, shine light on it, but if there isn't any light it's still there, you just cant see it!
Fantastic. Makes me want to buy the book. Can't wait to review the math on how much information can be stored in a volume (answer: the surface area divided by the planck area).
Can someone explain how the 'hot horizon' view could be correct given that the mass that falls in is radiated away - in that case nothing could permanently fall in and the black hole could never grow,.
The most hilarious thing about youtube is people who come here and expect to find reasonable or informative discussions on even the most simple of topics.
Penrose illustrates them all by hand, did you know? From what I've heard, Penrose and M.C. Escher had some correspondences. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_stairs
Fantastic lecture by Prof Suskind, thanks a lot for sharing the one with us !!! Magnificent evaporation of enthropy entangled with information hidden on the brink of the event horizon of the black holes makes the whole exciting, weird world go round eternally and omnipresently. What a marvelous coincidence, accident or whatever... that from the speck of dusts of the dark matter matched with the dark energy Planet Earth developed... and the human beings, oceans, forests, other creatures, ideas, emotions, brains, love and hatred willy nilly bonded together, and collapsed on themselves eagerly . Some spooky action of the multidimentional multiuniverses. Wondeful stuff.. keep it up Mr. Cosmos !!!
Is that true that DM is pushed away from solar system by solar radiation and this applies also for galaxies? DM forming a hallo around galaxies is this property to be thrown away by radiation? Is this meaning that somehow there IS an INTERACTION between "normal" matter/radiant manifestation and DM? Please give a sign!
PS check out Stephen Crothers, it turns out Einsteins field notes are wrong and many know it but we are stuck with Newtonian principals for now but it is changing, thank God.
Comment section includes: 1. Trolls who claim back holes don't exist 2. "Enlightened" people who claim black holes don't exist because they don't understand how they're observed.
***** And sheep who accept one mathematical theory as absolute concrete fact and firmly believe that any and all other alternate theories should be silenced and banned from the public.
pon2oon Translation: Bla bla bla I don't understand and I favour some obscure outdated physical theory you can find on a site somewhere. Also it's not just mathematical theory. Black holes can be detected by 1) detecting an unseen companion (3 solar masses or more) which a star is revolving around which can be deduced from the known star's mass and orbital period, shape of orbit etc. 2) Detecting an accretion disc emitting unusual amounts of X-rays for a conventional star that is high mass by itself and/or a binary companion to a star. These observations line up well with what mathematical theories (deduced over decades) describe as a "blackhole". While the details may be debated about weather say the event horizon of a black hole is the end of space-time or not for example, they the conservative estimate of what we observe. They still haven't been ousted as correct. Also at what point did I say "that alternate theories should be banned"? Science is about discussion and debate. An alternate theory probably hasn't been able to dismount physicists current conception of what black holes are. Good day sir. Don't forget to post you quackery below.
***** Also you need a mathematic that can handle infinite types of base systems and digits. That way your math fits reality like a glove instead of constantly contradicting it. But what do decimal mathematician know about using such things as a billion base system? Also your law of identiy aint nothing. Law of Synergy of Sides rules. Things are not exactly alike but exactly different. :)
Kentu KemPtah I am the only one on this planet that can do a billion digit calculation inwhich your primitive world need to build a computer for what I can do on paper.LOL! Ya'll primitives will learn.
It's somewhat frustrating to see some of these comments where people just claim that black holes are 100% fake. These are people who likely do not have any sort of actual experience within the study of cosmology and physics, and they presume to just discredit a renowned theoretical physicist, a man who very well may have a genius level intelligence, who's life's work has been devoted to advancing human understanding of the universe. But still, that's not enough and people won't ever just listen and respect the vast amount of knowledge and insight this man has. It's pathetic.
BasePuma you assume much about people. First who cares what the Physicist says? Most of what they learn is and speak of is outdated and based on atomistic ideals. Ask any of them how a magnet works and why. Ask them again how light travels through glass and slows down by a %, only to speed back up once it leaves the glass. Ask them what counterspace is. If they can answer all three, only then will I listen to them. Odds are they cannot, because what they were taught in "school" was wrong, and the principles that they work with are wrong.
Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean that scientists have gaping holes in their theories. There is literally a fucking Minutephysics video on why light goes slower in glass.
I mean I did a little research and even some well known scientists dont belieeve in them they are unsure what black holes even are. I;m just ashamed at how many people just listen to what they are told without even studying or doing external research some times what you are told is not the 100% story.
I am so relieved that there are people out there far more brilliant than myself! I feel a weight of my mind in admitting to you all that I am NOT as clever as this juicy stuff!
You would be surprised at how clever you might be, as long as you FOCUS on any subject for a little time. Never give up and claim, 'I am not able to be clever enough!" You have a brain, we all have brains. I was amazed to learn, years ago, that Einstein's brain was measured, weighed, photographed, etc. and no essential differences were seen between his brain and other, average, typical brains. Never underestimate yourself!! Where would we be if Einstein said, early in his life, "Nah, never mind... I'll just be a plumber."?
Thanks for the reply, Dan! Lol! Plumbers perform a vital role in society, some people must be plumbers, and not everyone is as clever as Einstein! I take great delight however in believing that I am phenomenally clever! Sometimes quite often I find it relaxing and therapeutic to deny my intelligence though. With Best Wishes! Cheers - Mike.
Someday we will figure it out. But for now it's easy to see noboby has any logic when it comes to black holes. Why is space always portrayed only warped on the bottom? (Like space is flat and something is under the black hole pulling on it) Logically speaking it's easy to reason that IF a black hole warped space causing a "hole" there is no reason why it wouldn't form 2 holes, one on top and one on the bottom, where each pole is. To me, the way we see 2 jets of energy shooting out of distant black holes at the center of other galaxies, kind of proves no "holes" even exist because those 2 jets of excess energy shooting out when feeding (that couldn't pile onto the black sphere fast enough and was forced back out) would be sucked into these so called "holes". Everyone just complicates black holes to much. They are just huge massive balls of matter more dense than neutron stars that have enough gravity to hold onto photons. I hope one day we might be able to label it correctly so as not to confuse everyone.
It's true that there's no "hole" in the way we are accustomed to thinking about it, but your analogy of forming 2 holes is not accurate. Its better to think of it as a deformation of the fabric of space time, the true nature of which we dont fully understand yet.
You shouldn't take the analogy too literally. The "ball" is meant to represent a 4d energy concentration, while the sheet is 3d space, warping along the spacial dimension, according to the energy concentration. Its too hard to visually represent it otherwise. The hole could have been drawn any direction, but they chose down, probably because that looks more fitting for a "hole".
Blake Holst Interesting and thank you. I really do wish they would turn it sideways for us once in a while. Always having the wormhole at the bottom gives the impression of added gravity beneath the black hole pulling on it causing it to "sit" on the fabric.
Angels N Demons I understand your frustration. I have had the same problems accepting artistic drawings of black holes and spacetime in general. You just have to accept that good 2d illustrations of real 3 dimensional objects cannot be made. A black hole is maybe better described with words and math than in an drawing? Quote "Always having the wormhole at the bottom gives the impression of added gravity beneath the black hole..." Btw Probably best not to use terms like "wormhole" when dealing with widely accepted black hole physics ;) They don't mix very good
Angels N Demons The 2D grid model is silly, it would of course have to be 3D, which you would see as the"space grid" becoming less dense radially, increasingly dense circumferentially, the more it approaches the whatever object. This, of course, forces another visualization of the supposed wormhole. The space would have to become non-existant at some "point" - and a "point" has no dimension, and yes that would mean non-existant; infinitely small, and infinity is something I would say you could approach as much as you bother to try but you can never reach it - for that would render it finite. Finally, try to imagine a numbered fraction of infinity. Does not compute? Then, how to get a gradient gravitational field from something infinite? You would have to attach this curve to a "point" where infinity "ends", I dare you to try.
tell me what elements have to be present in a black hole for its existence? what makes a black hole a black hole? after you answer ill then will answer your question
Nosk 007 If you don't understand physics, don't comment as if you do. The research of all people who have ever studied physics in the modern world has confirmed the existence of black holes. This is true to the extent that you will not be able to find a single respectable physicist who will speak against the existence of black holes. If you believe for some reason that you in your uneducated state of being are more intelligent and/or enlightened than every person in the entire scientific community combined, and that your knowledge exceeds or supersedes their body of knowledge, then that is something that you need to justify, it is not up to everyone else to justify the existence of black holes for you. Speaking of your question, it doesn't make any sense. A black hole can be made up of any kind(s) of element(s). A black hole results from taking a huge pile of any mater and squishing it into a tiny space. If the entire earth was crushed and compressed down to the size of a marble, it would become a black hole. Please note: The answer to your question should be covered in 8th grade science. The topics discussed in this video are not even taught academically until at least the fifth year of post-secondary education in physics. This is because in order for you to understand the mathematics which prove this, you need to be a calculus and wonky geometry god.
you ae only telling me what a black hole does, you are not telling what makes a blackhole. you are just saying math this math that theory this theory that. i dont understand that. you didnt answer me shit! because you dont know shit. so.. what makes a blackhole be a black hole?
This man knows how to explain. No crazy mathematics but simple ideas that go very far. Thinking like this made Einstein. When somebody tries to throw me with their mathematics I wonder what he or she is hiding under the rug. When you go through thousands of pages of math you realize you learned all the math but still cant grasp what is there. Now that is a sad state of affairs.
Can we solve this problem by sharing the event horizon of three frame layers? The first and outer layer would be the "heating" one, which occurs black hole evaporation. The second layer would be the "frozen" one the information is stored like a hologram obeying its principles. The third layer of the "entanglement", where information is stretched obeying the entanglement law. This information appears on the opposite side of the black hole sphere due the maximum curvature of two points of pixels forming a mirror image. I agree with you professor Susskind, the information is not lost.
His Dutch Colleague was and is, Gerard t'Hooft, who won the Nobel in 1999 with his Ph.d. thesis advisor, Martinus Veltman, on their work on Quantum Field Theory and elementary particle physics, specifically with Yang-Mills Theory and showing that the latter were renormaliazable, opening the way for SU(2) X U(1), which is the Electro-weak theory..which included as a mechanism to unify both the weak SU(2) with electrodynamics U(1), Spontaneous symmetry breaking-which used something called the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs particle, to show how one theory is really a different version of the other, that the way we get from the photon field quantum to the field quanta for the Weak force, W plus/minus and Z zero, is via the Higgs particle. Truly t'Hooft is one of the three great physicists of our generation, the other two being Stephen Hawking and Edward Witten.
Susskind needs to think over Planck Cubic Information. The elementary information is Planck length. Each information falling into black hole, dissolves into its dimensional information structure that reflects on the surface of black hole… not only space, but also time information stored in its time dimension…
George Smarsh yes, it does if you never prove it. Unless you chose to keep it locked in your head, but then it is still a thought and not a discovery :)
Robert Hardy Einstein predicted time dilation which is essential to general relativity by doing a thought experiment in which he imagined himself as a single photon approaching the speed of light. Thought experiments may not be discovery but they can certainly make leaps and bounds in human thought that leads to those discoveries and if it weren't for relativity, many inventions like GPS wouldn't exist.
If only there were a way to quantify the stupid in youtube comments. Then on the principle that the smartest videos have the dumbest comments, we'd know what to watch in advance,
or maybe you got it backwards and not smart enough to realize this ? how would you know ? reality is kinds weird like that and it's called a delusion of normality but you probably were already aware of that ..... I'm sure
Not to be too critical Robert, but: "or maybe you got it backwards and not smart enough to realize this ? how would you know ? reality is kinds weird like that and it's called a delusion of normality but you probably were already aware of that ..... I'm sure" the literary acuity of your comment does not bode well for the opposition stance to Stefan's remark. While the delusion of normality concept is surely alive and well, it hardly applies to scientists who live in a world where their perspective makes them certifiably insane compared to the normal perspective of the populace. Ironically, because you are talking about a clinical diagnosis based on social norms, getting repeatable correct results in a situation where most people get inconsistent or incorrect results can be considered a delusional state. At least by normal people. Does that address what you were saying about delusions of normality?
here's the thing about delusion of normality, anybody who believes they are normal or thinks that they can judge what is normal or not normal, is delusional because in reality there is no such thing as normal. The thing I find most interesting about reality, is that it doesn't really matter how smart a person is or isn't, what really matters is who can see reality the most accurately because in a way , intelligence is also a form of delusion but it's the norms who are the most delusional . No one can see reality accurately but it is possible to see it more accurately than other people and a step in the right direction is to know there is no such thing as normal and immediately you advance one notch above most people around you. The other thing is, really smart people don't advertise that they are smart because it would put them at a disadvantage but I'm sure you already knew that too......
"here's the thing about delusion of normality, anybody who believes they are normal or thinks that they can judge what is normal or not normal, is delusional because in reality there is no such thing as normal." While literally true, this comment is also mistaken. It is simply that normal cannot be perceived directly, it can only be approximated by sampling a sufficiently large number of people. Normal is then the set of attributes associated with the norm of the sampling set. That is where the word comes from. Normal means "like the norm". "The thing I find most interesting about reality, is that it doesn't really matter how smart a person is or isn't, what really matters is who can see reality the most accurately because in a way , intelligence is also a form of delusion but it's the norms who are the most delusional ." I believe there is at least an argument claiming that intelligence helps one accurately see reality, given an equivalent experience otherwise. "No one can see reality accurately but it is possible to see it more accurately than other people and a step in the right direction is to know there is no such thing as normal and immediately you advance one notch above most people around you." The next step would then be to realize that there is indeed something that could called normal, but that it doesn't represent any particular real people. "The other thing is, really smart people don't advertise that they are smart because it would put them at a disadvantage but I'm sure you already knew that too......" Fairly smart people, perhaps, don't advertise that they smart. Though some advertise repeatedly and loudly, much more than is justified by their actual intelligence. Very smart people don't really have a choice in the matter, as it would inherently require them to not do things that they find important to do. They just accept the distance that it engenders from other folks as a necessary side effect of having a very different world view..
"...al because in reality there is no such thing as normal. " No, stupid, only in your internet attention whoring world is there no such thing as normal. The rest of the world uses things called dictionaries, measurements and reasoning duckduckgo.com/?q=+define+normal Take the tablets, stupid, the doctors really are trying to help you.
Gregory House OMG I ACTUALLY CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD SAY THIS! ON A SCALE OF ONE TO EVEN I JUST CAN'T! HE IS A GENIUS AND YOU ARE JEALOUS OF HIS SUPER ALS SWAG! JUST CUZ YOU DON'T HAVE 12INCH RIMS AND CAN'T ROLL LIKE THAT!
I learned from Susskind from a lecture that Alice would never actually enter the black hole relative to everyone else. We are interested in our perspective from outside the black hole. According to GR, no amount of mass has ever actually entered a black hole. But GR has continuous equations which tend to infinity around the surface, which makes us look to QM for the answer. I'm confused how he doesn't point this out when he's the one who taught that principle for GR.
+Oners82 From the outside, Alice looks like she never hits the horizon. Not just because radiation from her gets red-shifted, but also because her proper time slows down compared to Bob's time, so it looks like her speed gets slower and approaches zero as she approaches the horizon. Alice from her perspective sails right past the horizon and hits the singularity soon after. One view is as true as the other. +Tim-J.Swan GR has infinities at the horizon but only in some metrics. Metrics exist that mapping the spacetime smoothly across the horizon. However, I don't think there are any that get rid of the infinities at the singularity. If Alice activates rockets just above the horizon and tries to hover there, she'll experience a near infinite temperature. To go through smoothly, without noticing the horizon, she has to coast inertially. If bob lowers a thermometer on a long string to the horizon and stops it just above, he'll also measure near infinite temperature.
you are mistaken, they are CALCULATED, and some Observations may show those calculations correct. or they may show them to be woefully inadequate, which is exactly why Stephan Hawking has said maybe they don't exist... Like he has told us they existed since the 60s... They have Never been, and are not being Detected.
well Oners, To the Idiots, we Geniuses appear to be crazy... Is ok. I dont care what anyone thinks about me. I ll be proven correct soon enough. But It would be most beneficial to the rest of MANKind if they would just realize how deeply they have been lied too.
Oh the Terror, the Treachery, the Profanity of it all..... You dumbass.... Again, We are on Y/T. You think I really give 2 shits if I used the correct number of o's in the word to/too? Your a shallow piece of shit aren't you Oners...
+Greg Jay Yes!!! THe EU seems to predict and explain almost everything, wheras the current gravity based model explains really NOTHING. It may take a few generations for this to soak in. Stubborn scientists...
+KarmaKahn Correct. Sadly (for the electrivists) EU doesn't happen to agree with observation. Thankfully (for everyone else) there are other theories that agree much more closely.
oldi184 Something like black holes are evident, no matter what I think. However, that is all I really think about them, as such. As a mathematical construct, they are fascinating and fun to study, even when the models have limited applicability.
If you incorporate the speed of light into your test, then there is no problem. You put the observer equidistant from BOTH sources of light, and the one that emits first will be detected first. It's only when you can't put the observer precisely in the middle that this problem even arises. You don't have the judge/observer at the end of one tennis player or the other, but rather right there at the center where the net is.
13:35 - 15:04 Pretty much all wrong. You don't just freely float past a horizon, and that's not all you need to know about a black hole. Time dilation. 31:20 "Both are true" Again wrong. Again, time dilation. From the outside perspective there is no hot soup because the interactions happen too slowly. However, the particles are all collected outside the horizon. From the falling perspective, the horizon is never actually reached, because again, time dilation. An infinite amount of time would pass in the rest of the universe before you could ever reach the horizon. If Alice even got close to it, Bob would cease to exist (He would grow old, die, and decompose). That is why they can't communicate. If Alice touched the horizon, time and the universe would first have to cease to exist. What is more likely, that time and existence cease, or that given an infinite amount of time, a piece of matter collides with you at such a velocity that you are ejected from the vicinity of the horizon?
***** They can't. But it's not quite the same as "stopped" so much as an insurmountable infinity of time passes at the edge of the horizon. The three main barriers that prevent hawking radiation from being a real phenomena are these... Gravitons don't exist. Negative energy/mass does not exist. Time dilation prevents anything from occurring even if they do.
***** Yes. ...and Hawking would love it to be an established theory, but it's nothing more than a speculation. Most people just assume that he must be right because he is famous, but I can assure you that most people also have not actually read his paper. I read his paper very thoroughly. This is basically how it goes: Gravitons leave the black hole, and disturb the space around it, creating virtual particle pairs. These virtual particle pairs must have one that is negative mass, and one that is positive mass. This has to occur directly at the horizon such that the negative mass particle must come into existence inside of the horizon, and the positive mass particle must come into existence outside of the horizon. Every single time, because if it were perfectly random, the net effect would be zero. So the idea is essentially that because the negative mass particle heads to the singularity (this also takes an infinite amount of time), and the positive mass particle is trapped outside of the horizon (whether or not it can escape which is basically a 0% chance even if time dilation did not exist)... the negative mass particle is supposed to reduce the overall energy/mass of the singularity, until the singularity ceases to exist. Now here are the problems. 1. Gravitons don't exist. 2. Antiparticles have positive mass, just like their particle counterparts. 3. If a particle had negative mass, it would be more likely to come into existence father from the singularity than the positive mass particle, not closer. 4. It's unlikely that a virtual particle pair could come into existence on opposite sides of a horizon (very suspect but not essential to disproving hawking's hypothesis). This assumes knowledge about the horizon which we do not have. 5. It takes energy to create virtual particles, that energy becomes the energy/mass of those particles. If a virtual particle came into existence on the inside of a horizon, it would add to the mass/energy of the singularity, not take away from it. When virtual particles recombine (or antimatter and matter counterparts come together) that energy is released. 6. Time dilation reduces the frequency of these hypothetical events to effectively zero. It helps if you think about time as moments and periods. The period being the time it takes to move from moment to moment. Gravity fields (and acceleration) create disparities in the period. The closer you are to a source of gravity, the longer the period. No matter how long your period is, your experience of that period is one moment. At the event horizon of a black hole, the period is infinite, that moment will never occur. At the edge of the horizon, looking back at the rest of the universe, you will see periods that appear infinitely small compared to your own, an exponentially increasing infinite number of moments occurring everywhere that is farther from the event horizon than you are.
I'm not shitting on well-established theories here, I am highlighting misconceptions which run counter to the well established theories. To Mr Hax, I study astrophysics.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off thru equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" .. Nikola Tesla
You should familiarize yourself with the current areas of research in physics before speaking. Nearly everything physicist do is experiment based. We don't do experiments on black holes because we don't know how to create them and would likely avoid it if we could. The concept of a black hole is extremely useful in testing our current models to see if they still work at such extreme circumstances. Given that black holes are demonstrated to be real in the universe and our current models are insufficient in explaining and predicting their behavior, it is clear that our theories are imperfect and need work. This lecture is about two physicists having different ideas about how our current understanding ought to be altered. Please take this for what it is and stop criticizing all of science without justification.
+rodgerfox3 We wont be able to travel faster than light. And honestly i wouldn't take Nikola Teslas "word" on modern physics very seriously, since our basic view of the world today didn't even exist when he lived.
***** No we havent. We have a name for hypotetiske psrticles moving faster than light. But due to the Lorentz transformation you cant accelerate over the speed of light. Even With infinit energy your mass would just go towards infinity.
***** Things "moving" faster than light hasn't been observed. However, we have observed particles "traveling" distances in time intervals that something would need to move faster than light to cover, but the particles weren't exactly "moving" in the way you're thinking. Whats actually happening is the wavefuction has a probability density at two locations far enough apart from each other than if you collapse the state twice in quick succession it will appear in one location and then the other, and the two locations could be far enough apart that depending on how quickly you collapsed the state the second time, it could have "moved" faster than light. But it didn't actually cover the distance between the two locations. Its sort of like teleportation, but also isn't and can easily result in something that looks like its moving faster than light if it was already traveling through space to begin with. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't the same kind of thing relativistic mechanics is talking about. You can't travel through space at a rate faster than light because of the way energy in defined in special relativity. If we are going to embark on a space voyage, this is the kind of motion we are concerned with and the speed limit is still a pretty big issue that has no apparent solution. So far, no exception to this speed limit has been observed and I would not hold your breath if I was you.
+mouseinmyhelmet I think you're touching upon quantum mechanics, where a quantum particles can be observed to be present at different places at the same time separated by vast distances. These particles appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light, but they don't, it's all relative to the observer at a given moment. Kind of like a rabbit out of a magician's hat... hehe
If Stephen's original theory was incorrect and he ultimately ended up agreeing with Dr. Susskind & associates, then why was the resulting solution (Hawking Radiation) still named after Stephen? I can only presume it's because he was the one who eventually "did the math," so to speak?
in my theory black holes on spaces without matter in them. Matter that surrounds the space will go in the empty space, leaving another empty space were they previously were.this causes a chain reaction that makes everything go inside of the empty space, causing it to expand in the process, swallowing up everything that is in contact with it. The movement of atoms cause a lot of heat,as well
Stephen Crothers (ruclips.net/video/hhYsOQTfYEc/видео.html) makes an excellent case that black holes cannot and do not exist in our universe because of the nature of black hole universes. Nature of Black Hole universes: 1 - Spatially infinite 2 - Eternal (i.e. static or stationary) 3 - Contain ONLY ONE mass 4 - Not expanding 5 - Asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved By these very foundations of a black hole universe, you cannot have 2 or even the supposed millions of black holes in our universe, especially not in our supposed expanding universe.
It's hilarious and really sad that there is a debate over how black holes work when they don't exist at all. There has never been empirical proof of a black hole and more importantly, the very definitions preclude them from existing in our universe and coexist with another black hole. Yet, most of us know they exist. Why?
Well the math shows they can exist and something that acts exactly like the math pedicts is observable in the center of every galaxy so I would say they are well proven
zosthegoatherd It is a giant assumption that the math shows black holes can exist. The idea is a bastardization of Schwartzchild's work, who made no mention of black holes. His actual 'solution' precludes black holes from existing.
Dennis Kautz We've yet to directly observe an electron as well but there's quite the amount of evidence out there to support it's existence. Falling onto empirical evidence to directly support an object that doesn't deal with visible light is fucking retarded. You observe the qualities of the surrounding environment to find the unseen, it's how people have found planets, it's how we've found the properties of an atom and it's why we can assume black holes exist.
I still don't see how "information is never lost." The energy it's made of is never lost, but information isn't it's component parts, it's the qualitative expression of how those parts are organized. It's like saying "a house is torn to shreds by a tornado and scattered all over Kansas, but don't worry, the house is never lost because those bricks & planks exist somewhere." Of course they still exist, but they were never house (information) until they were organized into one.
I think that last question needed better clarification. He talked earlier about problem of data duplication, with the caveat that it's effectively not duplicated because the two versions will never see each other. But as a black hole evaporates,and its Schwarzschild radius drops below the critical threshold we should see something emerge, right? The data will then have been duplicated.
I have heard no one talk about the possible different views two observers would see: one falling into the black hole, past the EH, and a second observer in orbit around the black hole. The orbiting viewer sees the other fall into the black hole, stretched miles long and seemingly lost forever. The other observer sees, as they fall into the black hole, the observer in orbit stretched miles long and disappear. Both observers remain in existence yet they are separated by the ultimate warp in space and time. Each one believes they have seen the other destroyed, when, in fact, both still exist. I have seen very little theory on the singularity... what might a traveler experience as they fall from inside the event horizon down to the singularity or the "sphere of singularity" as explained in some other talks? My sense is that information will STILL be maintained, I just do not see the thinking on how this might be.
Well, nothing "falls" or "gets sucked into" a black hole. Spacetime itself is being bent inward by the intense gravity. Think of it this way: You shine a flashlight toward a black hole (I know, bare with me); because of the intense gravity the light would bend inward toward the center, slow down, then stop and vanish. However, it's not. It's still moving a straight line at the speed of light. Forever. It's the SPACETIME that it's travelling through that gets bent and pulled and squeezed inward. From the lights perspective, it's still going straight forever like nothing happen.
+Joshua Westbrook No kidding. Also, you want to stress that, "nothing falls into a BH" and then immediately converse that spacetime is falling into a BH. I have seen or read nothing about the contemplated actual center of a BH. The differences between the core of a non rotating BH and those that are rotating (which, in reality, are 100% of BH's) describe compact cores vs. rings of distributed material (or spacetime) extended from a geometric center has been discussed a bit but no definete details on BH core composition I've seen.
@@joshuawestbrook3473 anything passing the event horizon will accelerate to near light speed, once it impacts the singularity at that speed (even an atom) will cause immense heat, however, due to the mass, the singularity will appear black, as no light can radiate away ...
"Both *things* are true," would seem to negate the entire concept of black hole existence, not justify them by "processing data" relatively. The intellectual problem with the concept of black holes is their paradoxical label as 'infinitely dense' and therefore being "Immovable Objects," or *relatively* speaking, "Unstoppable Objects*. Paradox squared ...
Dr Susskind identified that for every bit of non-blackhole information,there was 10 billion bits of information on the surface of a black hole,going on to say that 'almost all information in the universe is in the form of black holes'.If that is so,then have black holes have been active for long enough to have 'consumed' huge amounts of the their surrounding enviroment?Where/is 'information' a way of talking about matter/particles/radiation[?]
Ahm, if Alices bits get stuck on the horizon of the black hole, they don't need to be duplicated. simply alice herself inside is the projection from the surface in, and bob sees the information from the surface out. but the information is still there only once, it just gets projected in two directions.
Wait a Minute. If the universe can be viewed as a holgraph thats basically stored on the outer surface of the universe, couldn't it be that the expansion of the universe itself is basically caused by the creation of information? Information herby seen as some kind of order. Eg you take at the beginning the proposed super-hot, super-symetric state that the BBT suggests, and imagine that symetry got broke somehow, than there was now more information inside than before. But to store that information, the universe must have grown at least so much that its surface grew by one square of a planck-length. So basically whenever some struture is formed in the universe, lets say a cloud of gas, wich is full of entropy, forms into a solar system. the latter is much more ordered, so therefore, the surface of the universe must have expanded a bit to hold that extra information that the particles of the cloud are no longer distributed evenly in a certain volume, but are arranged in a very specific way. Does that make sense?
This is very intuitive to me, as intuitive as why an electric doesn't fall towards the atomic nucleus. So maybe a black hole is like a big atom where probability (|psi|^2) inside the horizon is simply zero. Now applying schrodingers equation to a black hole is beyond my math skills, but I'm sure someone out there has attempted this.
How can Bob see that Elis is burned when she is approching the event horizon if he sees that she is asymptotically slowing down, when approching the event horizon, and finaly freezing from his perspective.
i think it's possible for information to be lost in a black hole because if you have a fireplace and a fire going and you throw your report card into the fire, it turns into ash. The information is completely lost forever. Black holes are the same. They make the information disappear.
Mike Green You are completely wrong about the fireplace at least,if we hade the knowledge and technology to reverse the reaction of burn and reassemble the molecules at their previous state we could regain the information in paper.The information isn't lost,it is just tranformed to heat,ashes and some other stuff..
***** Science is all about the "Ifs" man. All physics problems are about the "ifs". If a ball is throw from height H with upward velocity V, what's the time t it will take to reach the ground? See?
For all the mystical properties attributed to black holes, they are dynamical systems and therefore subject to the rules such as Morse Theorem, Hopf Bifurcation Theorem, etc. which apply to dynamical systems. Thus black holes emit matter, but maybe not in the way Stephen Hawking described which was contrived to bypass the persistent belief that nothing escape from black holes.Properly understood the mechanics of black holes can explain thermodynamics and even gravity.
I don't know why, but it seems perfectly natural to conclude we are within a blackhole. If all information exists on a surface, why wouldn't that surface for our reality be on the event horizon of a massive black hole that surrounds all of this universe?
+fuzzywzhe That came also into my mind, but there is one thing that does not seem right: since black holes can suck some matter into them, if our universe was a black hole, there should be possibility for matter to come from "the outside" to our observable universe. But we also know that space beyond observable universe expands faster than speed of light, and anything that has mass can't move faster than light, so matter shouldn't be able to pass the boundary into our observable universe. For black hole analogue this is same as saying that no matter can pass event horizon of the (our) black hole, but we know and have even pictured things falling into black hole. There is a contradiction, but maybe again it is all relative and somehow there is no contradiction at all... ;)
If the event horizon is just the place where light turns the corner and can not come back, how does it become an artifact where information is stored and radiation comes from?
I'm having difficulty understanding the holographic principle due to an apparent contradiction between the basic principles of geometry, and the theory as I understand it. I have constructed my conundrum based around 2 principles which imply the derivations. In order for the derivations to be wrong, one or both of the principles must be wrong. Suppose you have a cube of plank-length bits. On the inside, there are 3D bits. On the surface, there are 2D bits. A single 3D bit is a cube with an edge dimension of 1 plank length. A 2D bit is a square with similar dimensions. Principle 1) Let n be equal to the length of a single side of the cube in plank lengths, therefore the number of 3D bits is n^3, and the number of 2D bits is 6*n^2. Principle 2) The bits contain simple, fundamental information such as a 1 or a zero, meaning that the information of many bits can not be squished into a single bit. Derivation 1) Using principle 1, and stealing principles from basic mathematics, we can see that at n > 6, the number of 3D bits will exceed the number of 2D bits Derivation 2) From principle 2 and derivation 1, we can see that the information contained in the volume can not fit on the surface. In fact, derivation 2 can be shown for any standard shape (including a sphere) since the volume will increase as a cubic while the surface are will increase as a square. Considering this, how then is it the holographic principle possible? Is the error in principle 1, principle 2, or both? I'm assuming the problem lies in imperfection of the analogy but I can't see how.
1:0150 I think this is because if black holes do not exist you are left with explaining the motion of some stars without them. Simply stated according to our current understanding of physics if you have enough gravity in a given area you have a black hole. It is important to note here that reality is under no obligation to conform to the understanding of any animal anywhere, not even humans.
is it progressive to argue about unverifiable information based on equations conjured up to make them work? the universe we live in is very simple to comprehend but we through our education have become so detached from it it seems so distant and complicated.
Like so many other youtube videos, this one needs its sound level increased. With all my settings and speakers turned up as far as they can go I can still barely hear the speaker, and the questions from the audience are damn near inaudible! Why is this so hard to fix?!
Just so no one gets confused like I did, when he says "Bits of information" or "Information", he is actually refering to the Number of Quantum States. Peace.
Yeah, he probably confused a few that actually knows how magnetic hard disks work and not explaining that the actual number of bits was just an analogy using morse code. LoL
To further explain: Information was his way of stating energy particles in a variety of different states. Much like how a dice has 6 or more sides and whatever side you are looking at tells you a piece of information. Particles are an infinitely sided dice so any side you see is a completely different state than all the other times you would view that energy particle unless you somehow ended up seeing the exact same position of the particle from your point of view. Just like dice, the point of energy you viewed does not get lost, it just is not directly in your view anymore. You can still see the side of a die when looking at the top if it is a 8 sided dice but the very top of the dice is what is chosen to be your perceived viewpoint of data on that dice. I feel like physicists are not doing a very good job. For one, black holes cannot be a disk with a drain hole in it. It would be a sphere like the sun. Not perfect in shape just like the sun is not perfect in spherical shape but still spherical. Also, it seems ludicrous to think that energy would just disappear into nowhere. So smart yet so dumb at the same time. Dense thoughts from cognitive dissonance are a terrible wart on science as well as the politics that must be played to be accepted or not by the rest of the community. To be truly revolutionary, you must also break away from the status quo and thus politics. Yay humanity...
Rasberry Jam "I feel like physicists are not doing a very good job. For one, black holes cannot be a disk with a drain hole in it. It would be a sphere like the sun. Not perfect in shape just like the sun is not perfect in spherical shape but still spherical. Also, it seems ludicrous to think that energy would just disappear into nowhere." Physicists are not doing a good job, because you don't get what they are up to?
Today (9-15-17) Cassini crashed into Saturn - a planned crash. After 30 years of extraordinary service Cassini finally ran out of fuel and committed seppuku (Hara-Kiri). But not a real Hara-Kiri because there was no dishonor in what Cassini achieved over the last 30 years. Cassini's demise was a dignified end to a noble warrior's life that was filled with new discoveries, some so astounding that they made the scientists involved on the Cassini Project "go back to the drawing board" to make their new discoveries fit into the cosmology they thought they knew. Now, on the other hand, I am certainly glad that neither Hawking nor Susskind were involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn. If they had been involved (with their "new math") Cassini probably would have wound up in deep space somewhere beyond Pluto by now. I don't know who is crazier Hawking or Susskind. Let's call it a draw so that neither tries to put a mathematical curse on me for disagreeing with them. Gibberish! Pure gibberish. How many more iterations must we suffer through at the hands of these two idiots? Not many I hope. And to think that they both get paid for producing stuff like this. Give guys like these two a computer, a generous budget, lots and lots of time, a plethora of barely-conscious, adoring, sycophants, and a good dose of Shakti and you too can become a world-class astrophysicist/mathematician/seer of all things imagined/ genius. Come on guys, cut the bullshit and get a real job. Let truly smart people do the thinking for the human race. I think the world would be better off without you two guys mucking things up. One last thought for a brave worrier, Cassini. Well done thou good and faithful servant.
Hmm...could we conclude that BlackHoles are a crucial component in the dispersion of information and matter throughout the universe...or even IS the universe? The principle that information is self referential is similar to fractal forms and self similarities...eternal and unending-replicating and sustaining itself at ever smaller(or larger) scales. MIND BLOWN.
It's because of the time distortion, isn't it? A strong gravitational field slows time as it is observed from within it, so temperatures and radiation intensity wold seem much less.
Lenny, if you analogized the volume of the Universe to that of the interior of a 1989 Toyota Pathfinder how much of the volume of cargo and passenger spaces combined would the total volume of the Black Holes in our Universe take up proportionally? I really have no idea. Maybe the front and about 67% of the rear center seating area? It's not an unreasonable question, I don't think.
It is interesting.However,we're using 'unknow to make an 'Theory from unknow Theory".If We say,the Temperature is heating up to 'infinity',then how come to convert that 'infinity' back to zero?I think,We may use the 'changing Timecode'.And if this is the only way for not to to say Infinity= Zero,then must have a point,a Definition to 'bending' the way that We follow to count,then Zero meet Infinity.Black Hole can be as long as We think,and nothing else can tell than say 'Infinity'.So,there another Universe 'Pocket' that existing and Black Hole could be 'way of connection,one to the other.By this way the Heat not just get higher-and- higher (and to where get to?).I don't think that Universe was built with 'Capacity' (like the way they build Termo-Electricity,somewhere Temperature will use to cool down).If saying Universe can expand as much as possible,then untill where (the Infinity).If there's Theory saying about 'Energy' use for Universe's Function.Then those,whether Magnetic or Temperature,they are living and dead.If anything use for Function is dead,the Universe is dead.Let say,as the Rumour,there's 'Black-Energy',or they are there await to 'revive' then inject to the rest o Universes,where use live Energy to continue for Function.My Idea is.whether Black Hole,is a tubing or an 'contact' between different Universe,they are like of kind that exchange live and dead Energy,communication for the Resourse for Function.And the 'bending' of those 'Tubing' change the 'Codetime'.Or mean,way of connection between 'different Universes'.And the Number of Universe can be change from bigger Number to small Number or riversal.And not yet,anyone can be sure,but is 'TIMECODE" can be different on each Universe and one Day there an Agreement to name them by count on the time of each was born.In this case DNA will have to be useful.
Could it not be the other way round? Like from the outside we see Alice just falling trough the horizon painlessly, while she on the other hand observes beeing evaporated?
Hologramms can also be made so that it is difficult to reconstruate them. I don´t think that a black hole is emty. Maybe the strings can modify each other and mix the informations so much that no one can ever restore them.
If a bit is "not there," it cannot be a dot or a dash. The Morse code analogy is flawed because Morse code requires spaces between the dots and dashes and between words. You need at least two bits to represent the units of Morse code, because there are four possibilities: a dot, a dash, a space between letters, and a space between words.
QM actually has many dot/dash/space like objects. His example was illustrative, not physical. In the simple model, add in positrons, and you have the three items you need: electron, positron, and actual spaces.
Higher dimensional space is more bizarre than an extreme environment like a black hole but perhaps the tangled membranes and strings are pulled into higher dimensional space via gravity forming black holes in our universe.
Something perhaps maybe as extreme as a black hole; a completely closed and isolated system. Such a thing may not even respond to gravitation. Such a thing would be truly inertial.
Question, if nothing can escape once it passes the event horizon not even light how is hawking evaporation or radiation possible to the point that even the singularity eventually is dispersed and radiated away over time? for it to do so the particle would need more energy than the entire black hole to escape the event horizon? just a silly thought that crossed my mind,we are all brothers and sisters in arms trying to understand the majesty of creation
So as Alice falls through the horizon she is severely time dilated and her space is being stretched across the surface of the horizon. She witnesses nothing because this stretching of space is not measurable for her but to Bob he sees her evaporate.. could it be that the severe stretching of space and severe time dilation simply looks a lot like evaporation to Bob.. so Bob is just not recognizing the actual event?
Just an after thought.....Wasn't it Hawking that proposed something from nothing happened in a Black hole?...But now says that it will evaporate down to the singularity.
This is how black hole was created : Dividing a number with ZERO in a mathematical equation. Since when are we allowed to dived any number ( specially if that number represents a concept ) with zero , in mathematic? Since childhood they did not allow us to do that. But these professors do it and call it blac hole.
I think that the extreme time dilation surely makes it obvious that you would get cooked when crossing the event horizon. Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose you compress the light of the night sky over an entire night into a single second. That "night sky" would be extremely bright, because the light of many thousands of seconds is hitting your retina in an instant. Now consider that the cosmic background microwave radiation gets blue-shifted to gamma-radiation because of this time-dilation at the event horizon. So Alice gets cooked 'from behind' as she enters into the black hole. This is actually one of the never adressed problems of faster-than-light or speed-of-light travel too. In the case of speed of light travel the cooking comes towards you from whatever direction you are moving to instead of from the rest of cosmos behind you but otherwise it's the same phenomenon. And this follows from only relativity and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. There should be a fire-wall there regardless of quantum mechanical considerations.
It seems to me now that it is very plausible that our universe is the interior of a giant black hole. And also that black holes in our own universe carry universes inside of them. A question screams in my mind: What is awareness? What is us?
"It's very very hard to explain things which are wrong." Very nice, Professor.
I'm amazed at all the black hole and physics experts there are in the youtube comments sections. I will tell my son to skip out on college and just read youtube comments, they already know everything.
+Mike Morrow Egg-zactly!! lol ... and Mr. Susskind was a plumber before becoming a theoretical scientist. He once explained how everything goes down the black hole like in a toilet bowl (no joke).
+Mike Morrow Well ive found a lot of my calculus lessons on youtube, because i can't be arsed to read the book.
I've made that same observation about every comment section. There's always a know-it-all that is all too willing to tell you how you're wrong about something.
it's funny how some people don't give credit for a mans intelligence, all I can say is, just because some people are experts on a subject, doesn't mean they are smart ! as a matter of my opinion, most experts are morons because of a false sense of intelligence. PS. being intelligence is a limitation because it doesn't matter how intelligent people are, what matters is who can see reality the clearest and the more intelligent a person is, the cloudier their view of reality is. I guarantee this
So true! " Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,."
How fortunate the world is to have such great scientists like Dr Leonard and other theorists who can think and theorize for us lesser beings. God bless them
Applying the Black Hole (BH) idea as a metaphor to the question of life after death, we could also say that when the physical body of a person collapses (i.e. the person dies), then that person is lost from the perspective of the living. But the BH idea says that from the perspective of the person drawn inside the BH horizon that person is still fine until sucked by the center of the BH. Actually, nothing enters the siphon of a BH, Susskind says, but is distributed to the surface of the BH horizon in the form of particles which can be projected in space as a hologram. I don’t know how good the BH metaphor is, but it gives a glimpse of hope for life after death.
Qvantum entanglement and holographic projection: all we are is Information: all our organs are projected on the skin of our soles. Ultimately all info that define us is not lost: children, nephews, next generation carry us in future, we are not lost, soul is pure information, bit by bit of electromagnetic oscilation emitted in IR by our body heat and sounds and mechanical actions we carry ultimately project us on EH. Our skin is our EH. We are a De Sittis spaces, our internal organs are projected on our skin and all our thoughts define allbwe are.
Ya know, I've struggled with this and occasionally get a panic attack laying in bed. Now, one way to guarantee you're always alive is to cause a predestination paradox which.. well, only works if you can travel back in time, which theoretically is impossible.
However, another thing to consider, is that after you pass, you have all of eternity to come back. 😉 Ya know, infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, something something.
What a wonderful service to have posted these lectures - thank you very much.
Agreed... Thanks :)
Agree. I exactly think same: generous to share us so accessibly for general nonspecialist public. By all my heart, all my gratitude and my best wishes to our brilliant Professor dr. Leonard Susskind, God bless him! I lost peace and rest since I have discovered him! He troubled, moved me profoundly, goven me a scope to continuu this life, because of dr Sussking my life is not anymore boring but I have not anymore silence in myself....
My instinct tells me that this discussion is absolutely bounded by the accepted, more or less working, theorems that comprise what we currently know about mathematics. I think we are missing a lot to assume that this is correct in any absolute sense, even though it conforms to what we think is correct.
Why are you so dead set to prove that you don't understand even the basics of physics?
This man explains mad things easy,hes just explained to me the averages joe how a blackhole works! Fascinating and i wish i had the brain to work out maths at this level.
If he actually explained how black holes worked, the video would not be an 1 and half long it would be about 5 seconds,
he would state black holes do not exist, holes can never have mass.
Shoe another example claim where a hole can have mass, let alone the mass to hold over 400,000,000,000 billon stars in its grip.
When he starts calling them dark stars , i will have respect for him,
In the images from the EHT( EVENT horizon telescope), That dark circle inside the accretion disk is the dark star , not a singularity.
Despite the lunatic hawking their is no radiation from dark stars not thermal or quanta.
The fermi bubbles are dark star magnetic field ejections.
Very enlightening. I am fortunate to be living in his times.
Nice comment
When physicists try to dumb down things too much the concepts look more incomprehensible than they really are.
Sorry scientists . The next MAJOR breakthrough will be revealed here on RUclips by some of the trolls who know shit about physics.
Haha of course RUclips commentors know more than people who spend all day studying this stuff😂
No matter how hard one tries, some concepts (particularly ones related to quantum mechanics) simply cannot be "dumbed down." The incomprehensible dance between (black hole) singularities and the information paradox certainly feels like one of them.
Ironically, while researching this topic, my brain tends to act much like a black hole to an outside observer. They can watch the information as it approaches my head before catastrophically burning up on the horizon of my brain hole... whereupon they will quietly ponder whether or not such neat information has been lost forever.
I feel engineering level of Phisycs and Mathematics, if revewed as hobby, opens us the Gate to this Incomprehensibily: differetial calculus, operational calculus, logic calculus, analitical geometry, algebra, analiza matematica, all this studency "nonsenses" now, at my retirement, after discovering dr Susskind, get sense!
Ironically this is bit paradoxical too, for indeed the truth of QM is not in human intuition and understanding but the infamous axioms and equation.
But Susskin, Feynman, and others strongly emphasize the importance of "visualizing" (in a sense of using the imagination) in drawing insights into physics.
There is an art to being able to explain things, and not being able to can pethaps suggest one knows less about something than they might think. I think many physicist are guilty of that, and I think it's telling someone like Susskind who by his own admission is nothing special in mathematics nevertheless is so noted for groundbreaking ideas because he looks at the whole picture
Just because some of you don't believe in this science doesn't mean you have to belittle those who've worked hard to get where they are with all of this information. If you don't believe in it, great. That's your opinion. But don't sit there and imply how idiotic it is. No one knows what's really out there, but these scientists are brave enough to think outside the box. They at the very least deserve respect for their hard work and contribution to this field of science, whether anyone believes in it or not.
Careful now....at first, your defense sounds more like a defense of religion and not science.....
Thing is Gracie its not actually science. "Science" is done first with a hypothesis then an experiment to prove the validity of your hypothesis. Then you can develop a theory. The process is called the scientific method. What these guys do with black holes ext. Is skip the whole part about hypothesis and experiment. And without experimental proof it's not science it's only fantasy, however mathematically derived it may be.
a monumental waste of human time..a staggering, incredible waste.......
Black holes cannot exist by the very nature of a black hole universe, which we do not live in. These people should be ashamed of themselves for not recognizing that black holes cannot exist. These black hole physicists have been pouring their lives into a black hole (metaphorically) all their lives because it simply cannot exist, and NOTHING has been gained from it, but time has been lost by thinking about BH, even my time.
ruclips.net/video/hhYsOQTfYEc/видео.html
However the Electric Universe model physicists have been making great strides in predicting and explaining effects, occurrences, and objects in space that have baffled the mainstream cosmologists/astrophysicists (people like the black hole scientists) when they're discovered.
Examples-
-Pulsar Neutron Star? No, stellar object reacting in similar fashion to Relaxation oscillator effects in a plasma.
-Comets are "dirty snowballs?" No, rocks (similar looking to chunks of a planet) that are negatively charged, moving closer to a positively charged sun, and discharging to charge equilibrium, which electrically excavates matter from the surface forming the glowing plasma coma and tail in an electrical environment.
Gracie Brown Gracie. Admit it: he could have said anything and you would have been swooning, because someone said he's a super clever bloke.
Boy, it didn't seem like it at the time, but it seems Interstellar really did dumb down black hole physics...
Oh don't worry it was dumbed down way before that.
"Love isn't something we invented. It's observable, powerful, it has to mean something... Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space." And then of course there's the bookshelf 🙄
if you have ever listened to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he talks about black holes and takes into account Sussex, Hawking, and Einstein, but he also has a theory that the reason the black hole is so massive is because it may be a hole into another universe. This may be true because, there is a theory that we are but a miniscule bubble in an infinitum space of other bubble universes, or a black hole is a super massive wormhole like Professor Michio Kaku has theorised
The best questions from any lecture from Lenny. Brilliantly put and described.
I like him. He has a lot in common with Professor Steven Hawking. What he says makes sense in an Einsteinian relativistic sense. It's the fusion of astronomy and physics that is inspiring,The event horizon of a black hole is the hologram of everything, to see it, shine light on it, but if there isn't any light it's still there, you just cant see it!
Susskind is very Fluent in explaining these Intrigit matters....i enjoyed this speech..
Fantastic. Makes me want to buy the book.
Can't wait to review the math on how much information can be stored in a volume (answer: the surface area divided by the planck area).
Can someone explain how the 'hot horizon' view could be correct given that the mass that falls in is radiated away - in that case nothing could permanently fall in and the black hole could never grow,.
The most hilarious thing about youtube is people who come here and expect to find reasonable or informative discussions on even the most simple of topics.
Susskind should collaborate with Roger Penrose in order to get more aesthetically pleasing illustrations. :)
haha!
Penrose illustrates them all by hand, did you know? From what I've heard, Penrose and M.C. Escher had some correspondences. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_stairs
220
As long as he doesn't get them from Lawrence Krauss. He thinks cows look like circles.
@@jelliott8424 Haha, that's an old math/physics joke based on the reality of people simplifying models.
Fantastic lecture by Prof Suskind, thanks a lot for sharing the one with us !!!
Magnificent evaporation of enthropy entangled with information hidden on the brink of the event horizon of the black holes makes the whole exciting, weird world go round eternally and omnipresently.
What a marvelous coincidence, accident or whatever... that from the speck of dusts of the dark matter matched with the dark energy Planet Earth developed... and the human beings, oceans, forests, other creatures, ideas, emotions, brains, love and hatred willy nilly bonded together, and collapsed on themselves eagerly . Some spooky action of the multidimentional multiuniverses. Wondeful stuff.. keep it up Mr. Cosmos !!!
Is that true that DM is pushed away from solar system by solar radiation and this applies also for galaxies? DM forming a hallo around galaxies is this property to be thrown away by radiation? Is this meaning that somehow there IS an INTERACTION between "normal" matter/radiant manifestation and DM? Please give a sign!
PS check out Stephen Crothers, it turns out Einsteins field notes are wrong and many know it but we are stuck with Newtonian principals for now but it is changing, thank God.
Clearly you don't understand the subject matter.
"Without further ado", the introducer _begins_ his introduction of Susskind at 3:05.
Dr. Leonard Susskind takes the podium at 4:37.
Comment section includes:
1. Trolls who claim back holes don't exist
2. "Enlightened" people who claim black holes don't exist because they don't understand how they're observed.
***** And sheep who accept one mathematical theory as absolute concrete fact and firmly believe that any and all other alternate theories should be silenced and banned from the public.
pon2oon Translation: Bla bla bla I don't understand and I favour some obscure outdated physical theory you can find on a site somewhere.
Also it's not just mathematical theory. Black holes can be detected by 1) detecting an unseen companion (3 solar masses or more) which a star is revolving around which can be deduced from the known star's mass and orbital period, shape of orbit etc. 2) Detecting an accretion disc emitting unusual amounts of X-rays for a conventional star that is high mass by itself and/or a binary companion to a star. These observations line up well with what mathematical theories (deduced over decades) describe as a "blackhole". While the details may be debated about weather say the event horizon of a black hole is the end of space-time or not for example, they the conservative estimate of what we observe. They still haven't been ousted as correct.
Also at what point did I say "that alternate theories should be banned"? Science is about discussion and debate. An alternate theory probably hasn't been able to dismount physicists current conception of what black holes are. Good day sir. Don't forget to post you quackery below.
***** Also you need a mathematic that can handle infinite types of base systems and digits. That way your math fits reality like a glove instead of constantly contradicting it. But what do decimal mathematician know about using such things as a billion base system? Also your law of identiy aint nothing. Law of Synergy of Sides rules. Things are not exactly alike but exactly different. :)
Kentu KemPtah I am the only one on this planet that can do a billion digit calculation inwhich your primitive world need to build a computer for what I can do on paper.LOL! Ya'll primitives will learn.
Kentu KemPtah So when the west gonna caught up with me? Ya'll can't. Ya'll still have probelms with a 1000 base system which I can teach a 5 year old.
Susskind is my favorite person.
Wise
It's somewhat frustrating to see some of these comments where people just claim that black holes are 100% fake. These are people who likely do not have any sort of actual experience within the study of cosmology and physics, and they presume to just discredit a renowned theoretical physicist, a man who very well may have a genius level intelligence, who's life's work has been devoted to advancing human understanding of the universe. But still, that's not enough and people won't ever just listen and respect the vast amount of knowledge and insight this man has. It's pathetic.
BasePuma you assume much about people. First who cares what the Physicist says? Most of what they learn is and speak of is outdated and based on atomistic ideals. Ask any of them how a magnet works and why. Ask them again how light travels through glass and slows down by a %, only to speed back up once it leaves the glass. Ask them what counterspace is. If they can answer all three, only then will I listen to them. Odds are they cannot, because what they were taught in "school" was wrong, and the principles that they work with are wrong.
Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean that scientists have gaping holes in their theories. There is literally a fucking Minutephysics video on why light goes slower in glass.
It doesn't matter how much of a genius you are if you are inputting wrong information into your brain to work with.
black holes are fake? But we've already sustain one in a lab...... So what's fake about that???
I mean I did a little research and even some well known scientists dont belieeve in them they are unsure what black holes even are. I;m just ashamed at how many people just listen to what they are told without even studying or doing external research some times what you are told is not the 100% story.
the paint skills :) i want to be immortal.. so i travel into a black hole ..
I am so relieved that there are people out there far more brilliant than myself! I feel a weight of my mind in admitting to you all that I am NOT as clever as this juicy stuff!
You would be surprised at how clever you might be, as long as you FOCUS on any subject for a little time.
Never give up and claim, 'I am not able to be clever enough!"
You have a brain, we all have brains.
I was amazed to learn, years ago, that Einstein's brain was measured, weighed, photographed, etc. and no essential differences were seen between his brain and other, average, typical brains.
Never underestimate yourself!!
Where would we be if Einstein said, early in his life, "Nah, never mind... I'll just be a plumber."?
Thanks for the reply, Dan! Lol! Plumbers perform a vital role in society, some people must be plumbers, and not everyone is as clever as Einstein! I take great delight however in believing that I am phenomenally clever! Sometimes quite often I find it relaxing and therapeutic to deny my intelligence though. With Best Wishes! Cheers - Mike.
Is this why the universe is expanding? As time progresses, more information is made, and the boundaries expand in order to record it?
Loved this lecture. Thank you.
Someday we will figure it out. But for now it's easy to see noboby has any logic when it comes to black holes. Why is space always portrayed only warped on the bottom? (Like space is flat and something is under the black hole pulling on it) Logically speaking it's easy to reason that IF a black hole warped space causing a "hole" there is no reason why it wouldn't form 2 holes, one on top and one on the bottom, where each pole is. To me, the way we see 2 jets of energy shooting out of distant black holes at the center of other galaxies, kind of proves no "holes" even exist because those 2 jets of excess energy shooting out when feeding (that couldn't pile onto the black sphere fast enough and was forced back out) would be sucked into these so called "holes". Everyone just complicates black holes to much. They are just huge massive balls of matter more dense than neutron stars that have enough gravity to hold onto photons. I hope one day we might be able to label it correctly so as not to confuse everyone.
It's true that there's no "hole" in the way we are accustomed to thinking about it, but your analogy of forming 2 holes is not accurate. Its better to think of it as a deformation of the fabric of space time, the true nature of which we dont fully understand yet.
You shouldn't take the analogy too literally. The "ball" is meant to represent a 4d energy concentration, while the sheet is 3d space, warping along the spacial dimension, according to the energy concentration. Its too hard to visually represent it otherwise. The hole could have been drawn any direction, but they chose down, probably because that looks more fitting for a "hole".
Blake Holst Interesting and thank you. I really do wish they would turn it sideways for us once in a while. Always having the wormhole at the bottom gives the impression of added gravity beneath the black hole pulling on it causing it to "sit" on the fabric.
Angels N Demons I understand your frustration. I have had the same problems accepting artistic drawings of black holes and spacetime in general. You just have to accept that good 2d illustrations of real 3 dimensional objects cannot be made. A black hole is maybe better described with words and math than in an drawing?
Quote "Always having the wormhole at the bottom gives the impression of added gravity beneath the black hole..."
Btw Probably best not to use terms like "wormhole" when dealing with widely accepted black hole physics ;) They don't mix very good
Angels N Demons
The 2D grid model is silly, it would of course have to be 3D, which you would see as the"space grid" becoming less dense radially, increasingly dense circumferentially, the more it approaches the whatever object. This, of course, forces another visualization of the supposed wormhole. The space would have to become non-existant at some "point" - and a "point" has no dimension, and yes that would mean non-existant; infinitely small, and infinity is something I would say you could approach as much as you bother to try but you can never reach it - for that would render it finite. Finally, try to imagine a numbered fraction of infinity. Does not compute? Then, how to get a gradient gravitational field from something infinite? You would have to attach this curve to a "point" where infinity "ends", I dare you to try.
The funny thing about a black hole is that even the physicists' equations are swallowed up by it.
George Smarsh blackholes doesnt exist anyway
Nosk 007 Explain to me the movement of the stars as observed in the center of our galaxy then. Oh wait! Galaxies do not exist either, of course.
tell me what elements have to be present in a black hole for its existence? what makes a black hole a black hole? after you answer ill then will answer your question
Nosk 007 If you don't understand physics, don't comment as if you do. The research of all people who have ever studied physics in the modern world has confirmed the existence of black holes. This is true to the extent that you will not be able to find a single respectable physicist who will speak against the existence of black holes.
If you believe for some reason that you in your uneducated state of being are more intelligent and/or enlightened than every person in the entire scientific community combined, and that your knowledge exceeds or supersedes their body of knowledge, then that is something that you need to justify, it is not up to everyone else to justify the existence of black holes for you.
Speaking of your question, it doesn't make any sense. A black hole can be made up of any kind(s) of element(s). A black hole results from taking a huge pile of any mater and squishing it into a tiny space. If the entire earth was crushed and compressed down to the size of a marble, it would become a black hole.
Please note: The answer to your question should be covered in 8th grade science. The topics discussed in this video are not even taught academically until at least the fifth year of post-secondary education in physics. This is because in order for you to understand the mathematics which prove this, you need to be a calculus and wonky geometry god.
you ae only telling me what a black hole does, you are not telling what makes a blackhole. you are just saying math this math that theory this theory that. i dont understand that. you didnt answer me shit! because you dont know shit. so.. what makes a blackhole be a black hole?
This man knows how to explain. No crazy mathematics but simple ideas that go very far. Thinking like this made Einstein. When somebody tries to throw me with their mathematics I wonder what he or she is hiding under the rug. When you go through thousands of pages of math you realize you learned all the math but still cant grasp what is there. Now that is a sad state of affairs.
Mathematics is the language of proportion
Can we solve this problem by sharing the event horizon of three frame layers? The first and outer layer would be the "heating" one, which occurs black hole evaporation. The second layer would be the "frozen" one the information is stored like a hologram obeying its principles. The third layer of the "entanglement", where information is stretched obeying the entanglement law. This information appears on the opposite side of the black hole sphere due the maximum curvature of two points of pixels forming a mirror image.
I agree with you professor Susskind, the information is not lost.
i am an expert on black holes,I lived in Africa
Oh snap!
I am an expert on black holes, i lived in a black hole.
Strat Guitars
me too called NEW JERSEY
lol. But in the "brother" sense offcourse.
LOL
for gods sake....give the mike in his hand or attach to his shirt.....
Why does every person who asks a question seem to either not speak English as their native tongue, or have some form of mental handicap?
His Dutch Colleague was and is, Gerard t'Hooft, who won the Nobel in 1999 with his Ph.d. thesis advisor, Martinus Veltman, on their work on Quantum Field Theory and elementary particle physics, specifically with Yang-Mills Theory and showing that the latter were renormaliazable, opening the way for SU(2) X U(1), which is the Electro-weak theory..which included as a mechanism to unify both the weak SU(2) with electrodynamics U(1), Spontaneous symmetry breaking-which used something called the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs particle, to show how one theory is really a different version of the other, that the way we get from the photon field quantum to the field quanta for the Weak force, W plus/minus and Z zero, is via the Higgs particle. Truly t'Hooft is one of the three great physicists of our generation, the other two being Stephen Hawking and Edward Witten.
Susskind needs to think over Planck Cubic Information. The elementary information is Planck length. Each information falling into black hole, dissolves into its dimensional information structure that reflects on the surface of black hole… not only space, but also time information stored in its time dimension…
Doing a thought experiment is not "discovering" something. It's "thinking of" something. Without observational confirmation, it's moot.
Well, technically you can discover new thoughts...
You could discover a formula on how to calculate the area of a square by thinking about it. Doesn't make the formula moot.
It is if you never bring it into contact with the world outside your brain.
George Smarsh yes, it does if you never prove it. Unless you chose to keep it locked in your head, but then it is still a thought and not a discovery :)
Robert Hardy
Einstein predicted time dilation which is essential to general relativity by doing a thought experiment in which he imagined himself as a single photon approaching the speed of light. Thought experiments may not be discovery but they can certainly make leaps and bounds in human thought that leads to those discoveries and if it weren't for relativity, many inventions like GPS wouldn't exist.
If only there were a way to quantify the stupid in youtube comments. Then on the principle that the smartest videos have the dumbest comments, we'd know what to watch in advance,
or maybe you got it backwards and not smart enough to realize this ? how would you know ? reality is kinds weird like that and it's called a delusion of normality but you probably were already aware of that ..... I'm sure
Not to be too critical Robert, but:
"or maybe you got it backwards and not smart enough to realize this ? how would you know ? reality is kinds weird like that and it's called a delusion of normality but you probably were already aware of that ..... I'm sure"
the literary acuity of your comment does not bode well for the opposition stance to Stefan's remark. While the delusion of normality concept is surely alive and well, it hardly applies to scientists who live in a world where their perspective makes them certifiably insane compared to the normal perspective of the populace. Ironically, because you are talking about a clinical diagnosis based on social norms, getting repeatable correct results in a situation where most people get inconsistent or incorrect results can be considered a delusional state. At least by normal people.
Does that address what you were saying about delusions of normality?
here's the thing about delusion of normality, anybody who believes they are normal or thinks that they can judge what is normal or not normal, is delusional because in reality there is no such thing as normal.
The thing I find most interesting about reality, is that it doesn't really matter how smart a person is or isn't, what really matters is who can see reality the most accurately because in a way , intelligence is also a form of delusion but it's the norms who are the most delusional .
No one can see reality accurately but it is possible to see it more accurately than other people and a step in the right direction is to know there is no such thing as normal and immediately you advance one notch above most people around you.
The other thing is, really smart people don't advertise that they are smart because it would put them at a disadvantage but I'm sure you already knew that too......
"here's the thing about delusion of normality, anybody who believes they are normal or thinks that they can judge what is normal or not normal, is delusional because in reality there is no such thing as normal."
While literally true, this comment is also mistaken. It is simply that normal cannot be perceived directly, it can only be approximated by sampling a sufficiently large number of people. Normal is then the set of attributes associated with the norm of the sampling set. That is where the word comes from. Normal means "like the norm".
"The thing I find most interesting about reality, is that it doesn't really matter how smart a person is or isn't, what really matters is who can see reality the most accurately because in a way , intelligence is also a form of delusion but it's the norms who are the most delusional ."
I believe there is at least an argument claiming that intelligence helps one accurately see reality, given an equivalent experience otherwise.
"No one can see reality accurately but it is possible to see it more accurately than other people and a step in the right direction is to know there is no such thing as normal and immediately you advance one notch above most people around you."
The next step would then be to realize that there is indeed something that could called normal, but that it doesn't represent any particular real people.
"The other thing is, really smart people don't advertise that they are smart because it would put them at a disadvantage but I'm sure you already knew that too......"
Fairly smart people, perhaps, don't advertise that they smart. Though some advertise repeatedly and loudly, much more than is justified by their actual intelligence. Very smart people don't really have a choice in the matter, as it would inherently require them to not do things that they find important to do. They just accept the distance that it engenders from other folks as a necessary side effect of having a very different world view..
"...al because in reality there is no such thing as normal. "
No, stupid, only in your internet attention whoring world is there no such thing as normal.
The rest of the world uses things called dictionaries, measurements and reasoning
duckduckgo.com/?q=+define+normal
Take the tablets, stupid, the doctors really are trying to help you.
if steven hocking is so smart y he cant walk
Gregory House OMG I ACTUALLY CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WOULD SAY THIS! ON A SCALE OF ONE TO EVEN I JUST CAN'T! HE IS A GENIUS AND YOU ARE JEALOUS OF HIS SUPER ALS SWAG! JUST CUZ YOU DON'T HAVE 12INCH RIMS AND CAN'T ROLL LIKE THAT!
Wade Draper
if he's such a genius, let's see him stand up
Why doesn't he know how to stand up? Or talk? Or buy braces?
Gregory House Plus they dont even know KemPTah mathematics. So sad. SMH
Kentu KemPtah scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11393009_1407853696208137_8747730883164096962_n.jpg?oh=774738508f2d76399db933c6901a6380&oe=5682B2F8
I learned from Susskind from a lecture that Alice would never actually enter the black hole relative to everyone else. We are interested in our perspective from outside the black hole. According to GR, no amount of mass has ever actually entered a black hole. But GR has continuous equations which tend to infinity around the surface, which makes us look to QM for the answer. I'm confused how he doesn't point this out when he's the one who taught that principle for GR.
+Oners82
From the outside, Alice looks like she never hits the horizon. Not just because radiation from her gets red-shifted, but also because her proper time slows down compared to Bob's time, so it looks like her speed gets slower and approaches zero as she approaches the horizon.
Alice from her perspective sails right past the horizon and hits the singularity soon after. One view is as true as the other.
+Tim-J.Swan
GR has infinities at the horizon but only in some metrics. Metrics exist that mapping the spacetime smoothly across the horizon. However, I don't think there are any that get rid of the infinities at the singularity.
If Alice activates rockets just above the horizon and tries to hover there, she'll experience a near infinite temperature. To go through smoothly, without noticing the horizon, she has to coast inertially. If bob lowers a thermometer on a long string to the horizon and stops it just above, he'll also measure near infinite temperature.
PLEASE NORMALIZE / COMPRESS THE AUDIO. This is literally 40dB under normal signal level
we cant find them, we'll never be able to detect them, but trust us, they are there because we say so..
Sounds remotely familiar.
you are mistaken, they are CALCULATED, and some Observations may show those calculations correct. or they may show them to be woefully inadequate, which is exactly why Stephan Hawking has said maybe they don't exist... Like he has told us they existed since the 60s...
They have Never been, and are not being Detected.
Wrong, they are getting data.
That means nothing but they are getting data. Idiot.
well Oners, To the Idiots, we Geniuses appear to be crazy...
Is ok. I dont care what anyone thinks about me. I ll be proven correct soon enough. But It would be most beneficial to the rest of MANKind if they would just realize how deeply they have been lied too.
Oh the Terror, the Treachery, the Profanity of it all.....
You dumbass.... Again, We are on Y/T. You think I really give 2 shits if I used the correct number of o's in the word to/too?
Your a shallow piece of shit aren't you Oners...
No dipshit what has been observed is not what is actually being observed. DUMBFUCK.
Electric universe FTW ,
+Greg Jay Yes!!! THe EU seems to predict and explain almost everything, wheras the current gravity based model explains really NOTHING. It may take a few generations for this to soak in. Stubborn scientists...
+Greg Jay
LOL...no.
+KarmaKahn Correct. Sadly (for the electrivists) EU doesn't happen to agree with observation. Thankfully (for everyone else) there are other theories that agree much more closely.
+David T (A thought)
So black holes are real? You think they are?
oldi184 Something like black holes are evident, no matter what I think. However, that is all I really think about them, as such. As a mathematical construct, they are fascinating and fun to study, even when the models have limited applicability.
Until you can point at something and be able to say; "that's gravity!", I'm afraid this is still a mystery worth pursuing.
In fact on almost anything you show you can say its gravity. Even on a falling apple.
If you incorporate the speed of light into your test, then there is no problem. You put the observer equidistant from BOTH sources of light, and the one that emits first will be detected first. It's only when you can't put the observer precisely in the middle that this problem even arises. You don't have the judge/observer at the end of one tennis player or the other, but rather right there at the center where the net is.
You have to love reading some of these posts. There is a gentlemen who admits to being quite able to pontificate multiple dimensions beyond the three.
13:35 - 15:04
Pretty much all wrong. You don't just freely float past a horizon, and that's not all you need to know about a black hole.
Time dilation.
31:20 "Both are true"
Again wrong. Again, time dilation. From the outside perspective there is no hot soup because the interactions happen too slowly. However, the particles are all collected outside the horizon.
From the falling perspective, the horizon is never actually reached, because again, time dilation. An infinite amount of time would pass in the rest of the universe before you could ever reach the horizon.
If Alice even got close to it, Bob would cease to exist (He would grow old, die, and decompose). That is why they can't communicate.
If Alice touched the horizon, time and the universe would first have to cease to exist.
What is more likely, that time and existence cease, or that given an infinite amount of time, a piece of matter collides with you at such a velocity that you are ejected from the vicinity of the horizon?
*****
They can't. But it's not quite the same as "stopped" so much as an insurmountable infinity of time passes at the edge of the horizon.
The three main barriers that prevent hawking radiation from being a real phenomena are these...
Gravitons don't exist.
Negative energy/mass does not exist.
Time dilation prevents anything from occurring even if they do.
*****
Yes.
...and Hawking would love it to be an established theory, but it's nothing more than a speculation. Most people just assume that he must be right because he is famous, but I can assure you that most people also have not actually read his paper. I read his paper very thoroughly.
This is basically how it goes: Gravitons leave the black hole, and disturb the space around it, creating virtual particle pairs. These virtual particle pairs must have one that is negative mass, and one that is positive mass. This has to occur directly at the horizon such that the negative mass particle must come into existence inside of the horizon, and the positive mass particle must come into existence outside of the horizon. Every single time, because if it were perfectly random, the net effect would be zero. So the idea is essentially that because the negative mass particle heads to the singularity (this also takes an infinite amount of time), and the positive mass particle is trapped outside of the horizon (whether or not it can escape which is basically a 0% chance even if time dilation did not exist)... the negative mass particle is supposed to reduce the overall energy/mass of the singularity, until the singularity ceases to exist.
Now here are the problems.
1. Gravitons don't exist.
2. Antiparticles have positive mass, just like their particle counterparts.
3. If a particle had negative mass, it would be more likely to come into existence father from the singularity than the positive mass particle, not closer.
4. It's unlikely that a virtual particle pair could come into existence on opposite sides of a horizon (very suspect but not essential to disproving hawking's hypothesis). This assumes knowledge about the horizon which we do not have.
5. It takes energy to create virtual particles, that energy becomes the energy/mass of those particles. If a virtual particle came into existence on the inside of a horizon, it would add to the mass/energy of the singularity, not take away from it. When virtual particles recombine (or antimatter and matter counterparts come together) that energy is released.
6. Time dilation reduces the frequency of these hypothetical events to effectively zero. It helps if you think about time as moments and periods. The period being the time it takes to move from moment to moment. Gravity fields (and acceleration) create disparities in the period. The closer you are to a source of gravity, the longer the period. No matter how long your period is, your experience of that period is one moment. At the event horizon of a black hole, the period is infinite, that moment will never occur. At the edge of the horizon, looking back at the rest of the universe, you will see periods that appear infinitely small compared to your own, an exponentially increasing infinite number of moments occurring everywhere that is farther from the event horizon than you are.
57:35
Velexia did you study physics or astronomy?
I'm not shitting on well-established theories here, I am highlighting misconceptions which run counter to the well established theories.
To Mr Hax, I study astrophysics.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off thru equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" .. Nikola Tesla
You should familiarize yourself with the current areas of research in physics before speaking. Nearly everything physicist do is experiment based. We don't do experiments on black holes because we don't know how to create them and would likely avoid it if we could. The concept of a black hole is extremely useful in testing our current models to see if they still work at such extreme circumstances. Given that black holes are demonstrated to be real in the universe and our current models are insufficient in explaining and predicting their behavior, it is clear that our theories are imperfect and need work. This lecture is about two physicists having different ideas about how our current understanding ought to be altered. Please take this for what it is and stop criticizing all of science without justification.
+rodgerfox3 We wont be able to travel faster than light.
And honestly i wouldn't take Nikola Teslas "word" on modern physics very seriously, since our basic view of the world today didn't even exist when he lived.
***** No we havent. We have a name for hypotetiske psrticles moving faster than light. But due to the Lorentz transformation you cant accelerate over the speed of light. Even With infinit energy your mass would just go towards infinity.
***** Things "moving" faster than light hasn't been observed. However, we have observed particles "traveling" distances in time intervals that something would need to move faster than light to cover, but the particles weren't exactly "moving" in the way you're thinking. Whats actually happening is the wavefuction has a probability density at two locations far enough apart from each other than if you collapse the state twice in quick succession it will appear in one location and then the other, and the two locations could be far enough apart that depending on how quickly you collapsed the state the second time, it could have "moved" faster than light. But it didn't actually cover the distance between the two locations. Its sort of like teleportation, but also isn't and can easily result in something that looks like its moving faster than light if it was already traveling through space to begin with. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't the same kind of thing relativistic mechanics is talking about. You can't travel through space at a rate faster than light because of the way energy in defined in special relativity. If we are going to embark on a space voyage, this is the kind of motion we are concerned with and the speed limit is still a pretty big issue that has no apparent solution. So far, no exception to this speed limit has been observed and I would not hold your breath if I was you.
+mouseinmyhelmet I think you're touching upon quantum mechanics, where a quantum particles can be observed to be present at different places at the same time separated by vast distances. These particles appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light, but they don't, it's all relative to the observer at a given moment. Kind of like a rabbit out of a magician's hat... hehe
Black holes are the wheels of Santa Clauses sled.
Andew Tarjanyi whisk is Andrew garanti,
If Stephen's original theory was incorrect and he ultimately ended up agreeing with Dr. Susskind & associates, then why was the resulting solution (Hawking Radiation) still named after Stephen? I can only presume it's because he was the one who eventually "did the math," so to speak?
in my theory black holes on spaces without matter in them. Matter that surrounds the space will go in the empty space, leaving another empty space were they previously were.this causes a chain reaction that makes everything go inside of the empty space, causing it to expand in the process, swallowing up everything that is in contact with it. The movement of atoms cause a lot of heat,as well
Quantum Mechanics for Old Farts :~)
Black holes don't exist. Electric Universe!
Please explain how galaxies are formed since they're electrically neutral
black holes do exist and yes the universe is electric
that is exactly what I was about to ask: suppose Black Holes do not exist?
what a waste of human time that is..or will turn out to be
Stephen Crothers (ruclips.net/video/hhYsOQTfYEc/видео.html) makes an excellent case that black holes cannot and do not exist in our universe because of the nature of black hole universes.
Nature of Black Hole universes:
1 - Spatially infinite
2 - Eternal (i.e. static or stationary)
3 - Contain ONLY ONE mass
4 - Not expanding
5 - Asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved
By these very foundations of a black hole universe, you cannot have 2 or even the supposed millions of black holes in our universe, especially not in our supposed expanding universe.
It's hilarious and really sad that there is a debate over how black holes work when they don't exist at all. There has never been empirical proof of a black hole and more importantly, the very definitions preclude them from existing in our universe and coexist with another black hole. Yet, most of us know they exist. Why?
Well the math shows they can exist and something that acts exactly like the math pedicts is observable in the center of every galaxy so I would say they are well proven
zosthegoatherd
It is a giant assumption that the math shows black holes can exist. The idea is a bastardization of Schwartzchild's work, who made no mention of black holes. His actual 'solution' precludes black holes from existing.
Dennis Kautz Might you share your insight in a peer reviewed paper? There may be a Nobel in it for you, Congratulations!
I'm working on it. Hell, if Obama can get one, I'd say I have a shot.
Dennis Kautz We've yet to directly observe an electron as well but there's quite the amount of evidence out there to support it's existence. Falling onto empirical evidence to directly support an object that doesn't deal with visible light is fucking retarded. You observe the qualities of the surrounding environment to find the unseen, it's how people have found planets, it's how we've found the properties of an atom and it's why we can assume black holes exist.
I still don't see how "information is never lost." The energy it's made of is never lost, but information isn't it's component parts, it's the qualitative expression of how those parts are organized.
It's like saying "a house is torn to shreds by a tornado and scattered all over Kansas, but don't worry, the house is never lost because those bricks & planks exist somewhere."
Of course they still exist, but they were never house (information) until they were organized into one.
Didn't know Mike was into theoretical physics!
I think that last question needed better clarification. He talked earlier about problem of data duplication, with the caveat that it's effectively not duplicated because the two versions will never see each other. But as a black hole evaporates,and its Schwarzschild radius drops below the critical threshold we should see something emerge, right? The data will then have been duplicated.
I have heard no one talk about the possible different views two observers would see: one falling into the black hole, past the EH, and a second observer in orbit around the black hole.
The orbiting viewer sees the other fall into the black hole, stretched miles long and seemingly lost forever.
The other observer sees, as they fall into the black hole, the observer in orbit stretched miles long and disappear.
Both observers remain in existence yet they are separated by the ultimate warp in space and time.
Each one believes they have seen the other destroyed, when, in fact, both still exist.
I have seen very little theory on the singularity... what might a traveler experience as they fall from inside the event horizon down to the singularity or the "sphere of singularity" as explained in some other talks?
My sense is that information will STILL be maintained, I just do not see the thinking on how this might be.
Well, nothing "falls" or "gets sucked into" a black hole. Spacetime itself is being bent inward by the intense gravity.
Think of it this way: You shine a flashlight toward a black hole (I know, bare with me); because of the intense gravity the light would bend inward toward the center, slow down, then stop and vanish. However, it's not. It's still moving a straight line at the speed of light. Forever. It's the SPACETIME that it's travelling through that gets bent and pulled and squeezed inward. From the lights perspective, it's still going straight forever like nothing happen.
+Joshua Westbrook No kidding.
Also, you want to stress that, "nothing falls into a BH" and then immediately converse that spacetime is falling into a BH.
I have seen or read nothing about the contemplated actual center of a BH.
The differences between the core of a non rotating BH and those that are rotating (which, in reality, are 100% of BH's) describe compact cores vs. rings of distributed material (or spacetime) extended from a geometric center has been discussed a bit but no definete details on BH core composition I've seen.
@@joshuawestbrook3473 anything passing the event horizon will accelerate to near light speed, once it impacts the singularity at that speed (even an atom) will cause immense heat, however, due to the mass, the singularity will appear black, as no light can radiate away ...
"Both *things* are true," would seem to negate the entire concept of black hole existence, not justify them by "processing data" relatively. The intellectual problem with the concept of black holes is their paradoxical label as 'infinitely dense' and therefore being "Immovable Objects," or *relatively* speaking, "Unstoppable Objects*. Paradox squared ...
Can someone explain to me what happens if Alice passes through the horizon feet first and watches her feet get burned forever?
The light from her burning feet cant reach her eyes 🙄
Dr Susskind identified that for every bit of non-blackhole information,there was 10 billion bits of information on the surface of a black hole,going on to say that 'almost all information in the universe is in the form of black holes'.If that is so,then have black holes have been active for long enough to have 'consumed' huge amounts of the their surrounding enviroment?Where/is 'information' a way of talking about matter/particles/radiation[?]
Ahm, if Alices bits get stuck on the horizon of the black hole, they don't need to be duplicated. simply alice herself inside is the projection from the surface in, and bob sees the information from the surface out. but the information is still there only once, it just gets projected in two directions.
Wait a Minute. If the universe can be viewed as a holgraph thats basically stored on the outer surface of the universe, couldn't it be that the expansion of the universe itself is basically caused by the creation of information?
Information herby seen as some kind of order. Eg you take at the beginning the proposed super-hot, super-symetric state that the BBT suggests, and imagine that symetry got broke somehow, than there was now more information inside than before. But to store that information, the universe must have grown at least so much that its surface grew by one square of a planck-length.
So basically whenever some struture is formed in the universe, lets say a cloud of gas, wich is full of entropy, forms into a solar system. the latter is much more ordered, so therefore, the surface of the universe must have expanded a bit to hold that extra information that the particles of the cloud are no longer distributed evenly in a certain volume, but are arranged in a very specific way.
Does that make sense?
Btw, an outer holographic surface hasn't been proven able to contain an inner holographic surface (ie a black hole).
This is very intuitive to me, as intuitive as why an electric doesn't fall towards the atomic nucleus. So maybe a black hole is like a big atom where probability (|psi|^2) inside the horizon is simply zero. Now applying schrodingers equation to a black hole is beyond my math skills, but I'm sure someone out there has attempted this.
How can Bob see that Elis is burned when she is approching the event horizon if he sees that she is asymptotically slowing down, when approching the event horizon, and finaly freezing from his perspective.
i think it's possible for information to be lost in a black hole because if you have a fireplace and a fire going and you throw your report card into the fire, it turns into ash. The information is completely lost forever. Black holes are the same. They make the information disappear.
Mike Green You are completely wrong about the fireplace at least,if we hade the knowledge and technology to reverse the reaction of burn and reassemble the molecules at their previous state we could regain the information in paper.The information isn't lost,it is just tranformed to heat,ashes and some other stuff..
***** Science is all about the "Ifs" man. All physics problems are about the "ifs". If a ball is throw from height H with upward velocity V, what's the time t it will take to reach the ground? See?
For all the mystical properties attributed to black holes, they are dynamical systems and therefore subject to the rules such as Morse Theorem, Hopf Bifurcation Theorem, etc. which apply to dynamical systems. Thus black holes emit matter, but maybe not in the way Stephen Hawking described which was contrived to bypass the persistent belief that nothing escape from black holes.Properly understood the mechanics of black holes can explain thermodynamics and even gravity.
I don’t get why Einstein had such a problem with “spooky action at a distance”-When everyday gravity is exactly that.
I don't know why, but it seems perfectly natural to conclude we are within a blackhole. If all information exists on a surface, why wouldn't that surface for our reality be on the event horizon of a massive black hole that surrounds all of this universe?
+fuzzywzhe That came also into my mind, but there is one thing that does not seem right: since black holes can suck some matter into them, if our universe was a black hole, there should be possibility for matter to come from "the outside" to our observable universe. But we also know that space beyond observable universe expands faster than speed of light, and anything that has mass can't move faster than light, so matter shouldn't be able to pass the boundary into our observable universe. For black hole analogue this is same as saying that no matter can pass event horizon of the (our) black hole, but we know and have even pictured things falling into black hole. There is a contradiction, but maybe again it is all relative and somehow there is no contradiction at all... ;)
If the event horizon is just the place where light turns the corner and can not come back, how does it become an artifact where information is stored and radiation comes from?
I'm having difficulty understanding the holographic principle due to an apparent contradiction between the basic principles of geometry, and the theory as I understand it.
I have constructed my conundrum based around 2 principles which imply the derivations. In order for the derivations to be wrong, one or both of the principles must be wrong.
Suppose you have a cube of plank-length bits. On the inside, there are 3D bits. On the surface, there are 2D bits. A single 3D bit is a cube with an edge dimension of 1 plank length. A 2D bit is a square with similar dimensions.
Principle 1)
Let n be equal to the length of a single side of the cube in plank lengths, therefore the number of 3D bits is n^3, and the number of 2D bits is 6*n^2.
Principle 2)
The bits contain simple, fundamental information such as a 1 or a zero, meaning that the information of many bits can not be squished into a single bit.
Derivation 1)
Using principle 1, and stealing principles from basic mathematics, we can see that at n > 6, the number of 3D bits will exceed the number of 2D bits
Derivation 2)
From principle 2 and derivation 1, we can see that the information contained in the volume can not fit on the surface.
In fact, derivation 2 can be shown for any standard shape (including a sphere) since the volume will increase as a cubic while the surface are will increase as a square. Considering this, how then is it the holographic principle possible? Is the error in principle 1, principle 2, or both? I'm assuming the problem lies in imperfection of the analogy but I can't see how.
1:0150 I think this is because if black holes do not exist you are left with explaining the motion of some stars without them. Simply stated according to our current understanding of physics if you have enough gravity in a given area you have a black hole. It is important to note here that reality is under no obligation to conform to the understanding of any animal anywhere, not even humans.
is it progressive to argue about unverifiable information based on equations conjured up to make them work? the universe we live in is very simple to comprehend but we through our education have become so detached from it it seems so distant and complicated.
Problems like this are always resolved by defining / redefining the system
Like so many other youtube videos, this one needs its sound level increased. With all my settings and speakers turned up as far as they can go I can still barely hear the speaker, and the questions from the audience are damn near inaudible! Why is this so hard to fix?!
+Jeff Rey i don't have the same problem
Just so no one gets confused like I did, when he says "Bits of information" or "Information", he is actually refering to the Number of Quantum States.
Peace.
Yeah, he probably confused a few that actually knows how magnetic hard disks work and not explaining that the actual number of bits was just an analogy using morse code. LoL
To further explain: Information was his way of stating energy particles in a variety of different states. Much like how a dice has 6 or more sides and whatever side you are looking at tells you a piece of information. Particles are an infinitely sided dice so any side you see is a completely different state than all the other times you would view that energy particle unless you somehow ended up seeing the exact same position of the particle from your point of view. Just like dice, the point of energy you viewed does not get lost, it just is not directly in your view anymore. You can still see the side of a die when looking at the top if it is a 8 sided dice but the very top of the dice is what is chosen to be your perceived viewpoint of data on that dice.
I feel like physicists are not doing a very good job. For one, black holes cannot be a disk with a drain hole in it. It would be a sphere like the sun. Not perfect in shape just like the sun is not perfect in spherical shape but still spherical. Also, it seems ludicrous to think that energy would just disappear into nowhere.
So smart yet so dumb at the same time. Dense thoughts from cognitive dissonance are a terrible wart on science as well as the politics that must be played to be accepted or not by the rest of the community. To be truly revolutionary, you must also break away from the status quo and thus politics. Yay humanity...
Rasberry Jam
"I feel like physicists are not doing a very good job. For one, black holes cannot be a disk with a drain hole in it. It would be a sphere like the sun. Not perfect in shape just like the sun is not perfect in spherical shape but still spherical. Also, it seems ludicrous to think that energy would just disappear into nowhere."
Physicists are not doing a good job, because you don't get what they are up to?
Today (9-15-17) Cassini crashed into Saturn - a planned crash. After 30 years of extraordinary service Cassini finally ran out of fuel and committed seppuku (Hara-Kiri). But not a real Hara-Kiri because there was no dishonor in what Cassini achieved over the last 30 years. Cassini's demise was a dignified end to a noble warrior's life that was filled with new discoveries, some so astounding that they made the scientists involved on the Cassini Project "go back to the drawing board" to make their new discoveries fit into the cosmology they thought they knew.
Now, on the other hand, I am certainly glad that neither Hawking nor Susskind were involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn. If they had been involved (with their "new math") Cassini probably would have wound up in deep space somewhere beyond Pluto by now. I don't know who is crazier Hawking or Susskind. Let's call it a draw so that neither tries to put a mathematical curse on me for disagreeing with them.
Gibberish! Pure gibberish. How many more iterations must we suffer through at the hands of these two idiots? Not many I hope. And to think that they both get paid for producing stuff like this. Give guys like these two a computer, a generous budget, lots and lots of time, a plethora of barely-conscious, adoring, sycophants, and a good dose of Shakti and you too can become a world-class astrophysicist/mathematician/seer of all things imagined/ genius. Come on guys, cut the bullshit and get a real job. Let truly smart people do the thinking for the human race. I think the world would be better off without you two guys mucking things up.
One last thought for a brave worrier, Cassini. Well done thou good and faithful servant.
Hmm...could we conclude that BlackHoles are a crucial component in the dispersion of information and matter throughout the universe...or even IS the universe? The principle that information is self referential is similar to fractal forms and self similarities...eternal and unending-replicating and sustaining itself at ever smaller(or larger) scales. MIND BLOWN.
I like how he uses paint in his presentation.
It's because of the time distortion, isn't it? A strong gravitational field slows time as it is observed from within it, so temperatures and radiation intensity wold seem much less.
Pure and utterly delightful speculation. God Bless all mankind. Better that we look after what we have here on Earth.
Damn, another religious imbeciles.
The whole thing is so absurd! Does it ever occur to anyone that may be all these are simply wrong?
Lenny, if you analogized the volume of the Universe to that of the interior of a 1989 Toyota Pathfinder how much of the volume of cargo and passenger spaces combined would the total volume of the Black Holes in our Universe take up proportionally? I really have no idea. Maybe the front and about 67% of the rear center seating area? It's not an unreasonable question, I don't think.
It is interesting.However,we're using 'unknow to make an 'Theory from unknow Theory".If We say,the Temperature is heating up to 'infinity',then how come to convert that 'infinity' back to zero?I think,We may use the 'changing Timecode'.And if this is the only way for not to to say Infinity= Zero,then must have a point,a Definition to 'bending' the way that We follow to count,then Zero meet Infinity.Black Hole can be as long as We think,and nothing else can tell than say 'Infinity'.So,there another Universe 'Pocket' that existing and Black Hole could be 'way of connection,one to the other.By this way the Heat not just get higher-and- higher (and to where get to?).I don't think that Universe was built with 'Capacity' (like the way they build Termo-Electricity,somewhere Temperature will use to cool down).If saying Universe can expand as much as possible,then untill where (the Infinity).If there's Theory saying about 'Energy' use for Universe's Function.Then those,whether Magnetic or Temperature,they are living and dead.If anything use for Function is dead,the Universe is dead.Let say,as the Rumour,there's 'Black-Energy',or they are there await to 'revive' then inject to the rest o Universes,where use live Energy to continue for Function.My Idea is.whether Black Hole,is a tubing or an 'contact' between different Universe,they are like of kind that exchange live and dead Energy,communication for the Resourse for Function.And the 'bending' of those 'Tubing' change the 'Codetime'.Or mean,way of connection between 'different Universes'.And the Number of Universe can be change from bigger Number to small Number or riversal.And not yet,anyone can be sure,but is 'TIMECODE" can be different on each Universe and one Day there an Agreement to name them by count on the time of each was born.In this case DNA will have to be useful.
Could it not be the other way round? Like from the outside we see Alice just falling trough the horizon painlessly, while she on the other hand observes beeing evaporated?
Hologramms can also be made so that it is difficult to reconstruate them. I don´t think that a black hole is emty. Maybe the strings can modify each other and mix the informations so much that no one can ever restore them.
If a bit is "not there," it cannot be a dot or a dash. The Morse code analogy is flawed because Morse code requires spaces between the dots and dashes and between words. You need at least two bits to represent the units of Morse code, because there are four possibilities: a dot, a dash, a space between letters, and a space between words.
QM actually has many dot/dash/space like objects. His example was illustrative, not physical. In the simple model, add in positrons, and you have the three items you need: electron, positron, and actual spaces.
Higher dimensional space is more bizarre than an extreme environment like a black hole but perhaps the tangled membranes and strings are pulled into higher dimensional space via gravity forming black holes in our universe.
Something perhaps maybe as extreme as a black hole; a completely closed and isolated system. Such a thing may not even respond to gravitation. Such a thing would be truly inertial.
Question, if nothing can escape once it passes the event horizon not even light how is hawking evaporation or radiation possible to the point that even the singularity eventually is dispersed and radiated away over time? for it to do so the particle would need more energy than the entire black hole to escape the event horizon? just a silly thought that crossed my mind,we are all brothers and sisters in arms trying to understand the majesty of creation
So as Alice falls through the horizon she is severely time dilated and her space is being stretched across the surface of the horizon. She witnesses nothing because this stretching of space is not measurable for her but to Bob he sees her evaporate.. could it be that the severe stretching of space and severe time dilation simply looks a lot like evaporation to Bob.. so Bob is just not recognizing the actual event?
Just an after thought.....Wasn't it Hawking that proposed something from nothing happened in a Black hole?...But now says that it will evaporate down to the singularity.
This is how black hole was created : Dividing a number with ZERO in a mathematical equation. Since when are we allowed to dived any number ( specially if that number represents a concept ) with zero , in mathematic?
Since childhood they did not allow us to do that.
But these professors do it and call it blac hole.
I think that the extreme time dilation surely makes it obvious that you would get cooked when crossing the event horizon. Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose you compress the light of the night sky over an entire night into a single second. That "night sky" would be extremely bright, because the light of many thousands of seconds is hitting your retina in an instant. Now consider that the cosmic background microwave radiation gets blue-shifted to gamma-radiation because of this time-dilation at the event horizon. So Alice gets cooked 'from behind' as she enters into the black hole. This is actually one of the never adressed problems of faster-than-light or speed-of-light travel too. In the case of speed of light travel the cooking comes towards you from whatever direction you are moving to instead of from the rest of cosmos behind you but otherwise it's the same phenomenon. And this follows from only relativity and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. There should be a fire-wall there regardless of quantum mechanical considerations.
It seems to me now that it is very plausible that our universe is the interior of a giant black hole. And also that black holes in our own universe carry universes inside of them. A question screams in my mind: What is awareness? What is us?
Gitaarman Ad - You should just stick to science fiction.
If Alice and Bob can communicte with each other by using quantum entaglement,what is the situation in 34.5???
Really? So far we haven't actually figured out how to make quantum entanglement work. Have you?
So far we haven't actually figured out how black holes "work",right? I mean,we have just thought and make a statement,so think about that...
They can't.