Planck Stars: Alive Inside a Black Hole
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Explore the enigmatic Planck star, a quantum construct surviving within black holes. Discover how this strange entity reshapes our understanding of black holes, quantum mechanics, and the universe's future.
![The Insane Science of Neutron Stars [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qX6h72IyKSo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Otaku Hot Girl [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/USxIYOaIpig/mqdefault.jpg)
two things are infinite, the universe and the number of Simons channels
no fr like how does he make so many vids
The Multiverse is actually the Simonverse.
And I’m not sure about the universe
The universe is debatable.
Whistler-multiverse, Whistlerverse
I would argue that Planck Star is a better name for a black hole. Because "black hole" is a bit of a misnomer. There is an object there, it's just a mass that has collapsed to such a point of density, that it warps the fabric of spacetime around it, to the point that even light falls in. The "hole" part that we can observe, when it's accumulating matter, isn't the object, it's just how much it warps space around it. The event horizon is all we can observe.
Well they were first called dark stars and then gravitationally collapsed objects. Black hole was only coined in i think the 1960s but it caught on due to the undeniably provocative catchiness.
what gets me is that apparently once you cross the event horizon, the singularity (or in this case the planck star) stops being a point in space and becomes a point in time which is very abstract but makes sense. if you think about it all gravity kinda seems that way. if you fall towards earth without any way to escape the "pull" the ground kinda ceases to become a point in space but more like the future, in a way
John Michell thought of “dark stars” around 1783.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153read Roy Kerr's paper from December last year. That whole "time switches roles inside a black hole" is completely false. That's what physicists have said for a long time but he conclusively proves that to be incorrect. It is due to a faulty coordinate system. Inside a black hole is a "not dissimilar from neutron star" central mass held up by the centrifugal force. Time still passes inside a black hole, after passing through the inner horizon you could never leave the black hole again but you are not doomed to be destroyed at a singularity. He beautifully proves this and the few mainstream physicists who have addressed his paper have conceded he is absolutely correct. It is his disproof of the Penrose singularity theorem. For some reason most physicists desperately cling to the singularity idea even though it is completely illogical for a rotating black hole (event single black hole in the universe), but admitting a singularity is not real opens a Pandoras box they prefer to not deal with. But time 100% does not stop in a black hole and the "central core body" is not a future moment in time.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153
I think that is a fantastic way to describe the "flip" once someone or something has crossed the event horizon. Very well put. 👍🏻
This channel is among the best additions to the whistler-verse
As far as I can tell the whisler verse doesn't use ai except to spell check which is refreshing
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
Is this some sort of AI knockoff?
So, Simon's beard. I don't see that thing collapsing under any kind of pressure.
I don't think it's under any pressure.
Hard to believe that a wooden board from a discontinued cartoon would have so much influence on the scientific community. 😂
Whoah deep cut! 🤣
BUTTERED TOAST
Don't know the reference, could you inform me. Though it sounds like something that would be in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
@@ckl9390 nope, it's a reference to Ed, Edd 'n Eddy.
JAWBREAKERS 🤤🤤🤤
OMG, another post from Simon without ads. 👍
Glad to see more Astrographics, @Astrographics and Simon - special request: please do an episode of a map of the known universe - starting from our Solar System which we all know, of course, but going on to the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster, etc. and please tell us - where are all these cosmic voids - Bootes void, etc - thank you and keep it up!
Scientists have actually proved mathematically that the known Universe is not old enough for any single person to have watched all the videos Simon has produced over the years in his singularity of channels!!!
Planck stars have something that no other stars have, and that’s strong abs.
I think you mean 10 to -14 meters. 10 to 14 cm is radio waves.
AM or FM???
@@Or3gunsPM
damn! uploaded 28 seconds ago! thank you Simon and co for perfect timing!
minor correction: there are no evaporating black holes today, as even the cosmic microwave background radiation alone is enough to sustain them. it won't be until nearly all stars have died out before black holes start evaporating.
Technically speaking, there are probably numerous evaporated black holes already. When scientists talk about it taking 10¹⁰⁰ years, that is for the largest of the supermassive black holes to finally fizzle away. Not all black holes are supermassive, although they're the only type we have been able to detect. Theoretically, micro black holes should also be common in the universe, evaporating within minutes or even seconds, too brief of a time for an astronomer to observe.
The point is all black holes are in a contiuous state of evaporation but the larger they become the slower the process
Neat!
I am happy to watch your vids because you're an actual person doing the work, and not some trash chatbot. They are out of control! # supportREALcreators!
Weird for a bot to say that lol
@@jeffdroogNot that it isn't heard of but the person has a 10 year old account. Most bots tend to be relatively new accounts. Although this account kind of uses a similar naming convention to ones bots use.
@dr4d1s I see a screen name like that,and all I can see is BOT lol Doesn't mean they are,it just struck me as weird,if it were a bot lol
No black hole today has started getting smaller from hawking radiation. More stuff is still falling in faster than the process. Black holes evaporating won't be starting for a long, LONG time from now.
There's a theoretical type of black hole called a Primordial black hole. They would be microscopic. Those are the ones that would be evaporating soon. If they exist. They have never been observed. So they are still just theoretical.
Yea, like the biggest blackholes would take 10^106 years to fully evaporate (for reference, the universe is 1.365x10^10 years old, so thats is a full 96 orders of magnitude larger)
Actually your wrong, sagatarius A * the black hole at the centre of the milky-way is not feeding at all, it is only radiating hawking radiation (if that actually exists) 🤔👽
You don't know everything about the universe, so many things being observed for the first time constantly rewriting what we assume.
@@bernieburton6520 Yes, basically remnants from the big bang or survivors of inflation or whatever (I'm no expert, but it was something along those lines). Being microscopic (even subatomic IIRC - that's in terms of volume, not mass), the odds of anything falling in are virtually zero, but Hawking radiation will evaporate them quickly (and quicker as they evaporate). IF they exist, of course.
Thank you for covering this topic! I've always found it really interesting.
Another notch in the whistlerverse. Wild
The theory of Planck stars inside a black hole seems much more valid than a singularity.
Singularity is a fact. Planck Stars is nothing, just a rewording because people are uncomfortable with the singularity.
😂
My favourite of the channels
I wouldn't mind learning more about exotic stars, maybe a summary of each in one video along with eventual videos of each individual type?
The two particles explanation for black holes is common, but flawed. Hawking said the radiation was due to the black hole disrupting certain modes of quantum waves, preventing the destructive interference that stops these waves from being detectable as a particle.
So I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I'd really like to see a video on one or more of the various non-government spaceships being developed/deployed. Maybe that's more of a sideprojects video but I'd be really interested nonetheless!
The time travel part is basically the plot of that old TV show: Andromeda
I enjoyed Andromeda a lot. 👍🏼
@@charlesblack2523 It was fun, tho iirc some of the later seasons got really weird
Whoa, that's a blast to my childhood!
@@drg9812 I mean when you involve time travel in any story it tends to get weird really fast
@@drg9812 I'm pretty sure that was because they replaced the writer after season 1
Rovelli's work in quantum gravity is inspired. He's also a wonderful storyteller. I highly recommend reading his books!
First thought when hearing of "Planck Star" has nothing to do with the man, I first think of a very very small "star" inside the black hole which is made of all the matter collapsing into it, crushed by gravitational force. Usually physicists say that inside the black hole is a "singularity", but everyone knows that cannot be true, because no physical quantity can ever have an infinite value (infinitely large or infinitely small).
ok, now prove the universe isn't infinite...
@@user-zw5ji3ng4t Easy. A finite thing cannot ever become infinite. Universe could be infinite only if it started infinite, otherwise it will always remain finite.
You should do one about how a collapsing star might create the perfect atom. I think that is the idea i dont really remember where i saw this or read about it, might be something else.
imagining the black hole as an object stuck in time waiting for enough antimatter to fall in for the plank star to touch the event horizon is an interesting way to look at it
Thanks for this. I have watched so many physics vids on RUclips and I never heard of this.
Not going to lie you have got to be my favorite person/chanel(s) of all time on RUclips
Yes, it is pretty cool to know about. Pretty cool indeed.
Thank you for this video! Planck stars are a new one for me, so it was fascinating to learn about them from you.
Makes a lot of sense. I always disliked the idea of a singularity existing because its smaller than the Plank length.
This stuff is over my head, however Simon is a stud muffin and I am shallow I will always watch his videos. 👍🏼
Love this, blows the mind
I was about 5 seconds ahead in my brain thinking about the differences in the time scale of the growth of such an object from the interior perspective and exterior perspective when you brought that up... but that felt a bit lack luster to me. It's gotta be *so much weirder* than that for things to work out mathematically.
Like... there would be a point in time when the maths would indicate that the volume of the planck star inside the black hole, from the interior perspective, would exceed the volume of the event horizon. Naively, this would suggest that at some point, when our clocks finally catch up, black holes literally revert back to visible celestial bodies with regular space-time curvature.
My money's still on Hawking Radiation, black hole evaporation, etc. But I *also* prefer the idea that there's some actual ... thing ... in the center of the black hole, and not some goofball mathematical singularity.
This is absolutely dope.
Yes please, more information on the uncertainty theory.
Astrographics I now love you hahah in 2018 I made a college essay on this! I AM SO very happy that others keep this idea alive! I love this with plank stores there is less paradoxes I don't understand why black holes with its paradoxes prevail. If anyone wants to read my college essay hit me up hahah
Oh no, Simon has yet another channel. Damn, what a productivity
Pre-watch, I could only start listening to the song, "Black Hole Sun", in my head. It didn't stop after watching the video, but I was disappointed that top comments never mention this.
I always think about it, every time there is a black hole related video. I think about posting, "Black Hole Sun! Black Hole Sun!" Probably because Soundgarden is my favorite band.
The production in this video is more impressive than the average Simon video, nice.
Can you do a video on variable speed of light theories? There is a niche group of scientists who claim their VSL theory explains all of GR with a VSL, but i need a channel like yours to break or down for people like me.
Thank you. Keep up the good work!
Wouldn’t you be able to theoretically use hawking radiation as a propellant to navigate through a black holes event horizon? That’s also considering we can manufacture a material/satellite that can withstand the gravitational force…
10 years ago I read about unexplainable observation, that some theorised could have been white holes. Now with some new calculations and observations, we came up with an actual scientific possible explanation for it and call it Planck Stars. Cool.
@1:27 he meant to say that the frequency of a "photon" instead of the "electron".
This video is full of errors, I wouldn't be surprised if all his videos are unreliable. :(
The claim that virtual particles always and only one side falls in and the other is emitted as hawking radiation implies the black hole influences the direction of the creation and separation of the virtual particle where as virtual particles are forming all around us right now so avoiding violations of thermodynamics both negative and positive should be on either side of the event horizon
That's because the explanation they use in this video is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed. The charge of the virtual particle is irrelevant and in reality there would be an equal number of both positive and negative particles. In fact that's not even right because what the explanation he's referring to is the particle/anti-particle pair, not the electric charge. What is really the point is that the energy of the particle that escapes from just outside the event horizon (not from within, that's still impossible) has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is the black hole's mass. But even THEN that's far too simplistic an explanation and to be frank I don't fully understand the full breadth of it. But it has to do with quantum fields interacting with the event horizon or how they bend around the black hole. PBS Space Time has a video on it and I've not been able to wrap my head around it enough to retain the info frankly.
Well I learnt something new about Planck Stars.
A Planck star is a galactic Spirit Bomb from DragonBall Z.
😆
It's estimated that Sagittarius A* at the center of The Milky Way will take 10⁸⁷ years to evaporate
we all came to life in an ongoing slow motion explosion
LoL, this guy is everywhere.
The singularity, if it exists, which it almost certainly does not, would not be located in the center of a black hole. It could not be found in any location, it could only be found in the future. The singularity represents a point in time, not in space.
Idea: Even getting close to a black hole(event horizon) would cause you to travel forward in time so fast that the black hole would evaporate before you could even cross the event horizon, much more make it to the singularity/plank star…
Now individually apply this logic to every object that has ever fallen into a black hole, and you come to the conclusion that: nothing ever makes it to the singularity >> mass doesn’t accumulate at the singularity >> singularity doesn’t have infinite density >> modern physics is solved because no point of infinite density
@jakammor4449 I have the same thought too. Nothing ever reaches the singularity because it's infinitely far away in the future.
@@jakammor4449 Except I don't think the math for the time dilation, which we've measured and checked extensively, doesn't work out that way though. Time dilation like spaghettification is much less pronounced at the event horizon of say a supermassive black hole like the ones at the centers of most galaxies so there it would be even less true. You could say that as they approach the singularity perhaps the dilation would be so extreme but like Antony said the singularity isn't a location, but exists in the future. That's because once you cross the event horizon of a black hole space and time flip, and frankly, things get weird.
Really..a new channel... my goodness.
Simon really the goat
If only we had an infinite probability drive.
Planck Stars is also the name of a five-member Japanese idol girl group from Hiroshima. They made their debut in 2018 and reached mainstream in 2021. Their music is a mix of Rock and electronic dance music.
me: what is planck star?
chat gpt: planck star is a girl group based in the event horizon of a black hole.
Hey! Knock that off! I might need those brain cells for something important someday!
Astrophysics is my favorite subject. Do not disappoint me, Simon. 🤔😝
Event horizon is just a concentric sphere around a black hole, where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Even if there is a planck star inside, how would that prevent the existence of event horizon?
Exactly
Realy I like this video so much its interestyng
Yay I made it through half of it before the planck stare and the drooling :)
Personally I think the proof of the existence of Planck stars is the fact that black holes rotate. To have rotation you need a center "which a black hole has" and an outer edge of the surface rotating. If you just have a center and no edge it can't rotate. Planck stars do have an outer surface.
oh my god it’s another Chanel to add to my Simon collection
The pressure - gravity is so great, that nothing can be there.
With an object that massive, effectively, sending matter and energy into the future, it would be somewhat like a spring of ancient water in a desert. Resources from the distant past are available to use and sustain life (or useful existence in this metaphor) in an oasis from emptiness.
11:32 not negative charge, negative mass/energy
The Uncertainty Principle may be only epistemic, not ontologic.
I'm just glad there's no one here who is going to debate the existence of anything 😅😅😅
Collapse of primordials seems like a possible source of some FRB.
Wow; didn't know Marseille was in Provence!
A black hole is just a condition of density reaching a specific point in the fabric of space time… as matter gets denser and denser, the matter “inside a black hole” eventually becomes dense enough that pushes into the fourth dimension… just like 2D matter became dense enough to push into the third dimension, and possibly levels below or above those… As enough matter is pushed into the fourth dimension, the star eventually loses enough density in the process and the black hole ceases to exist…
"Billions of years" doesn't even beginn to describe the time it takes for a large (~solar mass) black hole to evaporate, and the larger they are the longer it takes.
Simon should make another channel about fictional tech/lore/characters. Fictionalgraphics?
11:34 This is the part I don't understand. The anti-particle falling into the black hole reducing it's charge.
However, to the black hole, it's just another particle, it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, regular or anti-matter, it still feeds the black hole, making it grow.
So the description of how hawking radiation works is in conflict.
Planks Stars aren't even a theory in the scientific sense, they are a hypothesis. Although one, that is we can test, would greatly expand our knowledge of black holes and the cosmos as a whole.
13:17 An electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 10 to 14 cm would be a microwave oven microwave which operate at 900 megahertz or 2,560 megahertz which have wavelengths of 33 centimeters and 11.7 centimeters respectively. Gamma rays have wavelengths of less than one trillionth of a meter (1/10¹²) and frequencies of 10²⁰ to 10²⁴ Hertz.
Pressure at the Middle:
As you go down a mine, the force of gravity on you decreases: there is more and more Earth above you, pulling upward on you.
By the time you rach the middle, the net force of gravity is zero. You're under no pressure.
3:57 I have a sudden urge to watch Tom Baker Dr Who
How do you get gamma rays in the 2.1Ghz range?
Neat.
Conservation of information isn't a tenet of General Relativity; it's a tenet of Quantum Mechanics, so... gaping hole in the theory of Quantum Mechanics should be the line, along with a few others. ;) Otherwise, good job so far at 7:06!
4:40 According to a recent study Big Crunch or Big Bounce is likely, but in a very far future. All I remember they observed distant galaxies and got 0.8 for a constant which should have been more than 1.0. So the expansion should be slowing already, but instead it's accelerating because of the mysterious Dark Energy. So it could be after all stars die out, all black holes explode (Hawking radiation), after all black dwarves explode (quantum tunneling fusion), in a universe full of decaying cold matter and photons or maybe sometimes after the time itself dies to the Heat Death.
But again, these theories involve quantum mechanics, timescales of "forever" and science which is still being researched and I work in IT, not astrophysics, so take it with a grain of salt.
I have my own hypothesis about the structure of the universe, according to which the universe is discrete at a very fine level, so there exist a maximal density. And thus, there is indeed something like a planck star in every black hole - simply a ball of matter with the that maximal density.
Wouldn't the event horizon just expand as the Planck star grew in size/mass? Especially since mass rises faster than volume?
Blackhole lifespans are directly correlated to their mass. Smaller black holes would last fractions of a second while larger ones last billions of years, yet at the same time they all have the exact same lifespan from their perspective.
How is that possible? Simple really, imagine a bucket with a big hole in it and a really sloppily placed patch. The less water in the bucket the worse the patch works. If you somehow fill the bucket up it's basically a fixed bucket that never empties, however anything less than that and the bucket simply empties out. The more water that leaves the bucket the faster it continues to leave.
So why is their perspective different? That happens because mass is time. With out mass, there is no time, the more mass, the more time. Time being a motion in space, without an object there is no motion to have. The larger mass things move slower from our perspective because they gather time like a funnel gathering all the water around them. Big funnel, more time it sucks up, little funnel, the less time it sucks up. Big things age slower because they are bigger, and that mass eats up all the time around it.
That being said there are always exceptions, primordial black holes are essentially buckets which never had holes, that have existed since the dawn of our universe. They are infinitely small buggers that flit about doing random quantum things which would boggle your mind all because they can. Just like the cheeky little brats they are. Since they have no holes to leak from, this makes them all but undetectable by our present methods, since with nothing leaking out, we can't spot them.
We know at some point the universe was finite in size. It was probably at planck temperature at its creation which contained everything. Therefore we could estimate the total size of the universe using planck size and temperature and scale it up. Of course it would be wrong and no way to 'confirm' it but it would give us an idea of the scale of the total universe
If it's not actually an event horizon around a planck star, would there actually be any Hawking radiation or would that idea now become redundant?
Its honestly always mystified me why we didnt always assume this was the case, why we dont assume black holes are quarks and gluons forced into each other like electrons into neutrons in a neutron star
A Planck star actually makes sense, since it is the pixel of the universe. And since it is a "black hole" or a Planck star, then it can only have Planck density, which would be exactly the density you would need so that only information/"photons" gets out, anything less wouldn't make it. The max density and gravity so that only internal universe processes can communicate out of it. And those just enough, it is the limit. This would be the so called "Hawkings radiation". A singularity would be some kind of overflow of information into that pixel, and I guess that can't happen, the whole universe would crash just like a computer program would. I actually like the computer metaphor applied to the universe, even if simplistic and not to be taken literally, it kinda makes sense.
42
It is easy to find things in pure mathematics and not take into account other viewable objects. Like a stationery black hole. Never been found and is improbable in knowing how they are formed.
Okay, I was wondering, how strong is Planck Stars Gravity, It is finite right? What is it gravitational acceleration?
A fast talking Simon doesn't do this topic justice.
Jesus christ, Simon. Every time I get on RUclips, I find a new channel of yours.
Well presented, comprehensible but at the same time a looot of information
Wouldn't the event horizon - which is just the point at which measurement by light breaks down due to gravity - grow along with the addition of mass to the Planck star? Proportionally, even?
Many, many years ago, someone posited a 'Dark Star'- a star so massive that it's escape velocity was higher than light; there was no mention of collapse, or singularity. If any body, is massive enough, there will be a 'speed of light' boundary, from which nothing can escape. If that object is a singularity, or a Planck Star, the result will be the same, an event horizon. Don't know why the one associated with the Planck model is seen as a pretend EH.
A black hole is a singularity. In some circles it is taught this is called a singularity because there’s only one of them. This astrophysical phenomena is incredibly unusual. Might be that the singularity is man made, whereas, this phenomenon exhibits an electromagnetic effect that is not seen in nature among naturally occurring celestial bodies. So, I believe I have heard it said… sounds crazy, huh?
The death of a planck star which is in a superposition, dies through a quasar emission.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa. edit: Basically, the more you know about one aspect of a particle or wave, the less you know about the other aspects. Say you are certain of the amplitude of a wave, then the frequency is less certain. Sort of lol
just do an anti-gravity propulsion vehicle drive-by through the planck star to time travel
"Nothing happens... forever."
So, basically exactly like it was before the Big Bang.
12:50. Tilt!