Also consider just how tiny a sub-atomic sized black hole would be. Remember the gravity is only king inside the event horizon. Also remember that atoms are mostly empty space. To give you an idea of the scale, if a nucleus was the size of a basketball the next nucleus would be 3 MILES away, with nothing but empty space between them. The event horizon would be like the size of a grain of sand or a bacteria cell on this scale, and it would have to directly contact the basketball to absorb it, not just come near it. And even if it does, all that happened is it absorbed ONE atom and grew slightly larger. They've estimated that if one of these black holes had been formed along with the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, it would have managed to consume about 1 gram of the Earth by today. It happens that slowly. So even if we are completely wrong about the evaporation thing, don't worry we are still safe.
I gotta go with rainguardian122 here - first all black holes are singularities so they're all sub-atomic - there are no particles there. Second, as Trace stated, a black hole "evaporates" if it doesn't absorb new matter, as in a region of space where that might theoretically be possible - there's plenty of matter to absorb on the surface of our planet. Even if such experiment is doable, the risk would be that we destroy the only planet with life we know of...so, count me out.
shmuckling You misunderstood me. I am referring to the black holes event horizon, which is different from the singularity. Of course the actual singularity is point sized, but the event horizon does have an actual size. The black holes that we might create at the LHC are all subatomic in size, because they would be made up of the mass of a single proton. So, what I was referring to is that even if a subatomic black hole got created and DIDN'T evaporate like we think it should, it's still not dangerous because it would take 4.5 billion years to absorb 1 gram of the Earth, for the reasons I stated above. We aren't in any danger from this.
Fiber optics? Lasers? Been around since the 60s. It's not how fast a bit gets from point A to point B but how fast you can turn the bit on and off. Think about flashing a light switch in Morse code, the light gets to your eye near instantly, but sending a message depends on how fast you can turn a light on and off. (there are lots a reasons we can't turn the light on and off faster, but one of them is that it gets hard to see accurately after its been sent a hundred miles down a fibre optic cable.
yes u will after the dooms day when v all will be resurrected.. and to live happily forever and ever v will have to struggle hard today..v need to search for the true meaning of life and live according..So get ready for a FOREVER LIFE..😎
Trace...my brain hurts.. I love these videos and I want more.. but this is to much for me to process at once.. does this make me "dumb"? I get most other things in here... OWWWWwwwww!
yeah me too on all the above and i have an iq of 135 not too brag but i just did a standard test so pretty much telling every one i think that for the other things its fine to learn through video but this is advanced shit you have to know more about the subject than a 4 min video can allow
Don't think of subjects as hard or easy, just be true to yourself, if it truly piques your interest you will do your part to fill in the missing pieces of your repertoire. You're aptitude may affect your velocity but you'll get there when you're ready.
I'm still not sure how the particle pairs always produce a particle outside the black hole and decrease the mass inside the black hole. Wouldn't it work the other way around fifty percent of the time: increasing the mass of the black hole and decreasing the mass of whatever the escaping half encountered? (Someone tried to explain this to me a few times, but I'm still lost.)
+Shawn Ravenfire That's sorta why the blackhole loses mass, to keep the numbers balanced. Virtual particles exist because of the uncertainty principle, in this case, you can't tell the energy and time at the same time; so for the briefest amount of time a given point in the vacuum can have a huge amount of energy (or none at all, we can't know). To make virtual particles "real", you need energy; that energy comes from the mass of the blackhole.
They would evaporate before being able to suck in even a single electron (largely because they don't even last nanoseconds, partially because the Hawking radiation is blowing away any particle that could otherwise be eaten, partially because it's so much smaller than any particle it could eat), and the energy they would give off when they "explode" would be the equivalent to digesting a chocolate bar. I wouldn't be surprised if a baking soda volcano produces more energy than a black hole created in a particle accelerator.
According to Xaonon's Hawking Radiation calculator, a microgram-sized black hole would evaporate in 0.6 Planck times. "One Planck time" is the universe's definition of "instantly", and a microgram-sized black hole would evaporate in less time than THAT. Particle accelerator black holes are a few decimal points smaller than a microgram. They evaporate SO MUCH FASTER than "instantly."
It depends on which definition of alive you choose. Do they think and feel? Are they flesh and blood? No to both questions. They are alive in that they exist, are not inanimate, they are very dynamic and full of energy. They are not alive in the same way as a bird or an insect. But they are alive in the sense that they exist, are animated, are doing things.
James Barton But we can safely assume that the OP was talking about being a uni- or multi-cellular organism capable of feeding, producing, replicating, and going through distinct phases before death.
As a binge watching mobile user, I can't click on the annotation for another one of your videos on the screen. Sometimes they show up in the recommended videos, but sometimes they can be a bit more difficult to find. One suggestion that I have to make the viewing experience more seem less is to put the link of the annotated video into the description for us mobile users. You guys do a great job, this is just one nit picky thing I noticed. Thanks!
HOLY SHIT!!! That is so fucking smart dude...I’ve heard about the vacuum energy and seen videos on it...but the fact that Steven hawking thought of the idea of a black holes ability to separate those pairs is freaking awesome It gave me chills ;-;
Black Holes Change into white holes which spits out all the things it has sucked up so basically its the opposite of a black hole Btw all the planets it has sucked up causes collisions so yeah its crazy btw this is a theory i've heard so dont judge. Like if you liked these facts :D
We don't really know if white holes actually exist, and we certainly don't know if black holes turn into white holes. It sounds reasonable, but the extremes of space tend to shatter "reasonable" into a million shards.
The Entity darlin' does it. Friends 4ever well I guess it just is my wild imagination of sending a probe to Uranus and wondering what it's gonna be like
How I got to this video. Watched an anime video where he mentioned "No game No life" which led me to watch an episode of it -> To win a game they remove the coulomb force -> Which made me google it -> In an article it said that the removal of the force on earth would not create a nova as some people said -> Which made me google after pictures/videos of novas -> Which then made me remember watching a video from nasa where a black hole swallowed an entire star -> Which made me search for "Black Hole" here on youtube which showed me this video.
You got wrong where the virtual particles appear. When both virtual particles appear inside the event horizon, none can get out. But if one appears inside and the other appears a fraction of a nanometer further outwards, one is sucked in while the other can escape and, having no particle to annihilate, it becomes a real one and flies away, carrying energy (mass = energy) away. Also, the particle does not carry negative energy, because that would mean that some other thing (the black hole) has to gain energy so that the total amount stays constant. This means that the particle has positive energy and positive mass. Also, negative energy is doubt to exist at all, because it implies negative mass, which would imply gravitional pushing which makes things weird.
Two physics points: The video states that mass must be entering the black hole. That is not strictly true as energy can be entering the black hole as well. Currently there is too much cosmic microwave background radiation to allow a black hole of any notable size to evaporate due to hawking radiation. Second, the vides says that the virtual particle pair is formed between the event horizon and the singularity. This is not at all true. If they both formed on the other side of the event horizon they would both stay in the black hole and we would never be able to observe them. Hawking radiation occurs when a particle pair is formed outside of the event horizon and one particle falls into the black hole while the other does not. Both are formed on the outside of the event horizon.
If I may, make a suggestion for your show?! Could you, if & when you have the time and patience, make 3 versions of each episode...1) For your normal viewers, with your current content...2) One version for "Dummies"...3) Finally, one version for single celled organisms, like myself to get a vague idea on wtf you're talking about!... Thankyou in advance, for your time.
CERN 2020: There! I have successfully created a micro black hole which will allow me to examine the HAWKING radiation to... wait, why are you growing now?
Love the LHC and theoretical physics vids. It is hard for an average joe like myself to find and stay up to date with the newer/developing theories out there. Keep 'em coming.
wait a sec so since stars that have a great amount of mass turn into black holes right? so umm if the black hole started to loose its mass then wouldn't it turn back into a star then? :P
Wouldnt it also be possible that the virtual particle with "positive" energy/mass falls into the black hole, and the negative one escapes, thus effectively reloading the black hole with mass out of nowhere? And if so, wouldnt both effects expect to neutralize each other? @StephenHawking, please clarify!
I believe that for a black hole to eventually lose mass through "evaporation" (aka Hawking Radiation), it must already be observed to be losing mass. It does not make sense for the object to eventually just "begin" to move toward a state of entropy, it must always be moving toward it. Unless we are able to observe the change in black hole mass, I do not believe we know how black holes will reach their demise.
We say that when a body "A" moves near the speed of light with respect to body "B", the Time for "A" moves slower compared to "B". But when "A" is moving near the speed of light, so is "B" with respect to "A", because motion and speed is always relative. So, how does time for "A" slow down compared to "B"? Am I missing something?
I think that the exact same "Evaporation" process that is supposed to reduce the mass of a blackhole is the reason that the blackhole's mass doesn't get reduced. Here's why: We are assuming that only the negative virtual particles are going to end up on the event horizon side, but there is no reason why the positive virtual particle can't end up on the event horizon side too, thereby adding mass to the blackhole and taking mass away from our universe. So this "Evaporation" process is balanced by it's own "Condensation" process.
- Warm water rises > Evaporates - Warm air rises > Plasma Warm plasma does not rise nor does it fall. Therefore there is no buoyancy in Space. Nothing is falling into the Sun. Nothing is falling into the Galaxy. Black Holes do not exist. Space is filled w/ Plasma. Space is spun around in circles via each EMF.
When a star dies, because of its mass, gravity implodes the star so strong, it turns into a black hole, sucking in everything around it, the more matter it sucks in, the stronger and bigger it gets. When there's no matter to suck in anymore, the gravity will lose its gravitational pull, thus allowing all the matter inside to slowly expand outward, and the black hole disappears, spreading the matter to create more stars and more black holes creating another galaxy, because matter cannot be destroyed.
I keep hearing how quirks pop in and out of existence or from nothing yet if they are simply "popping" up in space time, that is not popping up out of nothing.
If the pairs appear between the event horizon and the singularity like stated at t=2m30s none of them could escape to the outside (from the perspective of a stationary coordinate bookkeeper there is not even space or time inside the Schwarzschild-radius, so the pairs appear outside the horizon with the nearer particle getting trapped and asymptotically approaching the horizon while the other particle escapes, roughly speaking)
Hawking radiation could even be used to generate power from black holes by capturing the radiation in collectors. but you would need a small black hole which is radiating intensely and you would need to feed it to keep it's power output stable. not doing so would cause the black hole to radiate more and more as it shrank until it explodes with enough force to take out most of the solar system (yes you read that right, most of the solar system).
aside from entanglement, wouldn't a particle sitting at the very edge between no escape and escape have a probability of escape? Then after that particle escapes the reduced mass of the black hole would allow another particle to as well.
Hoooold on there bub. If the particle that fell into the black hole has a "negative" mass, wouldn't that mean that this "negative" mass keeps the black hole stable in much the same way it would a wormhole mouth or a warp bubble?
Wait, so the negative particle falls into the black hole occasionally. Doesn't, equally often, a positive particle fall into the black hole as well? That would mean the balance is even, and black holes on average don't have to fade away? Or is there no real "positive" or "negative"?
You do know you have kinda big mistake there. The Hawking Radiation particle is created at the event horizon, or close to it, not between the singularity and the event horizon. Particles created beyond the event horizon, can't escape, but mass-less particles created at the event horizon, can have one partner escape, while the other sucked in.
Hadron Collider Scientist A: We are gonna lose funding if we dont actually do something other than smash particles together! Stoned Hadron Collider Scientist: Dude, like I totally am, like understanding everyting right now... Like what if we are just INSIDE a black hole... Can black holes have babies? Do black holes have rights? Like do BlackHoleLivesMatter? Hadron Collider Scientist A: Your a genius! Baby black hole!!!
I get that the math says the black hole *should* lose mass. But how does that *physically* happen? It seems to me that the only way it works is if the virtual particle has negative mass and it reaches the surface of the black hole and neutralizes some of the positive mass there. In that case, how would a kugelblitz evaporate? It's not possible to neutralize light with "anti-light" or something like that.
Wait, if a black hole can suck in particles with negative energy, it can also suck in those with positive energy, so on average, wouldn't an isolated black hole always keep a balance in mass?
And thus over billions of years (that's a really long time) the black hole would evaporate. For a super massive black hole it might last longer than the universe.
Wait why would it disappear? Wouldn't the singularity just become light enough that it wouldn't warp space time as much? Wouldn't it just be like a really small neutron star?
should I mention it is possible to get out once past the event horizon if the vehicle can produce a force greater than the force of gravity yielding a velocity away from the black hole and thus avoid the escape velocity.
Not necessarily. It would just have to counteract the gravitational force of the black hole; this doesn't have to be achieved through velocity. Or so 20 years of science fiction has taught me.
What prevents the member of the pair which wasn't initially pulled into the black hole? Isn't it close enough to the event horizon that it would be immediately be sucked in too?
With black holes losing mass. What happens when the mass of a black hole falls below the critical mass to form a black hole? Would it then become something like a neutron star?
I thought the virtual particles are pairs of normal and anti-particles- hence why they destroy each other after. In the video it said that the particle that falls into the black hole must have negative energy, but if the above is the case couldn't the normal particle fall into the black hole and the anti-particle be expelled, thus adding mass to the black hole?
Lets imagine black hole losing its mass. I wonder at which point it stops being a black hole? Imagine the last negative energy particle falling into singularity and making it disappear. That would mean that the singularity at that point had a mass equal to the particle that fell in. Which means that any negative energy virtual particle represents a black hole, right?
But what would happen if the tiny back hole didn't disappear but suddenly consume everything around it? 🤔 How can we contain a black hole and make sure it disappears? Can this backfire on us?
According to our understanding of black hole mathematics, it's impossible to create a stable, feeding black hole in a lab. But of course our understanding of black hole mathematics may be incorrect. If we are, the lead scientist will not have the chance to say "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
1.) So far, the blackholes we create always fall apart in a few seconds. They are unstable. 2.) Even if Scientists do create a stable one one day, nothing to worry about. The blackholes are soo tiny (as in the size of particles) that it's force would be too weak. It would take it nearly a 100 years just to suck up a Packet of Chips.
Let's make mini black holes on earth guys! Sounds like a great idea!
mini black hole would evaporate within micro seconds, so..... what the worries about?
Also consider just how tiny a sub-atomic sized black hole would be. Remember the gravity is only king inside the event horizon. Also remember that atoms are mostly empty space. To give you an idea of the scale, if a nucleus was the size of a basketball the next nucleus would be 3 MILES away, with nothing but empty space between them. The event horizon would be like the size of a grain of sand or a bacteria cell on this scale, and it would have to directly contact the basketball to absorb it, not just come near it. And even if it does, all that happened is it absorbed ONE atom and grew slightly larger. They've estimated that if one of these black holes had been formed along with the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, it would have managed to consume about 1 gram of the Earth by today. It happens that slowly.
So even if we are completely wrong about the evaporation thing, don't worry we are still safe.
I gotta go with rainguardian122 here - first all black holes are singularities so they're all sub-atomic - there are no particles there. Second, as Trace stated, a black hole "evaporates" if it doesn't absorb new matter, as in a region of space where that might theoretically be possible - there's plenty of matter to absorb on the surface of our planet. Even if such experiment is doable, the risk would be that we destroy the only planet with life we know of...so, count me out.
shmuckling You misunderstood me. I am referring to the black holes event horizon, which is different from the singularity. Of course the actual singularity is point sized, but the event horizon does have an actual size. The black holes that we might create at the LHC are all subatomic in size, because they would be made up of the mass of a single proton.
So, what I was referring to is that even if a subatomic black hole got created and DIDN'T evaporate like we think it should, it's still not dangerous because it would take 4.5 billion years to absorb 1 gram of the Earth, for the reasons I stated above. We aren't in any danger from this.
David Stagg This is an interesting statement, can I get a source for that "4.5 billion years for one gram of Earth mass" thing?
Only Nokia can escape a black hole.
It’ll choke
😂😂😂
Thats how black hole die
Thats why i think we came from a Nokia Big Bang
LMFAO
HEROES NEVER DIE
wait wrong topic oops
close enough
dat profile pic doe
+The Timelords overwatch is what i thought
RIP Harambe
Harambe died for your sins.
So if we can "send and receive" Information through light, does this mean that we will have Light Speed internet?
As fast as the Universe will let us Hopefully?
God I hope soooo
Fiber optics? Lasers? Been around since the 60s. It's not how fast a bit gets from point A to point B but how fast you can turn the bit on and off. Think about flashing a light switch in Morse code, the light gets to your eye near instantly, but sending a message depends on how fast you can turn a light on and off. (there are lots a reasons we can't turn the light on and off faster, but one of them is that it gets hard to see accurately after its been sent a hundred miles down a fibre optic cable.
shadfurman
Chill Gamez chill gamez... Sup? 😀
i just want to live forever man
Chicharito!!!
blow the joint!
yes u will after the dooms day when v all will be resurrected.. and to live happily forever and ever v will have to struggle hard today..v need to search for the true meaning of life and live according..So get ready for a FOREVER LIFE..😎
+Xavier Hernandez No shit!
Loblied auf die Zweisamkeit hahahahaha made my day
REUPLOADED AND FIXED the event horizon animation! Thanks for the feedback everyone!
#GoScience!!
Trace...my brain hurts..
I love these videos and I want more..
but this is to much for me to process at once..
does this make me "dumb"?
I get most other things in here...
OWWWWwwwww!
yeah me too on all the above and i have an iq of 135 not too brag but i just did a standard test so pretty much telling every one
i think that for the other things its fine to learn through video but this is advanced shit you have to know more about the subject than a 4 min video can allow
fuck da law 02:28
Don't think of subjects as hard or easy, just be true to yourself, if it truly piques your interest you will do your part to fill in the missing pieces of your repertoire. You're aptitude may affect your velocity but you'll get there when you're ready.
+John T well said thank you
Hello. I am the sad Jared particle.
Really? That's you? Do you work at DNews or know Trace or something?
I'm sorry the negative mass half of you got annihilated by the black hole. LOL
Cheer up dude, you made it out of a black hole.
ghero46 yeh, tell me, how is popping in existence like?
Funny thing is my actual name is Jared
Im particle wave
Intro: Black holes evaporate
Me: Alright thanks
-Clicks off video-
I was almost like that as well.
yay they used my name :)
Is your name black hole 😱😱😱
Black hole ?
He's talking about the particle :/
Shard Animates it's not funny the earth will end forever
Jarid Gaming lmao dead channel
It would be wise if we don't make a black hole even if it's very very tiny. Black holes are very very unpredictable
Unpredictable, yes. Not to create one, maybe. It's best to know as much as we can about it before we can even think about create such an object.
I'm still not sure how the particle pairs always produce a particle outside the black hole and decrease the mass inside the black hole. Wouldn't it work the other way around fifty percent of the time: increasing the mass of the black hole and decreasing the mass of whatever the escaping half encountered? (Someone tried to explain this to me a few times, but I'm still lost.)
just posting to follow this thread, I'm hoping someone answers. I'm curious too!!
The energy to separate the particle pair comes from the blackhole; both particles in the pair got positive mass.
***** If both particles have positive mass, wouldn't that mean that mass had been created from nothing, which is apparently impossible?
+Shawn Ravenfire
That's sorta why the blackhole loses mass, to keep the numbers balanced.
Virtual particles exist because of the uncertainty principle, in this case, you can't tell the energy and time at the same time; so for the briefest amount of time a given point in the vacuum can have a huge amount of energy (or none at all, we can't know). To make virtual particles "real", you need energy; that energy comes from the mass of the blackhole.
***** Wow, thanks!! That explains things very well. :)
Him - "It's going to be deep"
Me - "That what she sayd "
Please god scientists please don't try to make mini black holes that could go so badly
They would evaporate before being able to suck in even a single electron (largely because they don't even last nanoseconds, partially because the Hawking radiation is blowing away any particle that could otherwise be eaten, partially because it's so much smaller than any particle it could eat), and the energy they would give off when they "explode" would be the equivalent to digesting a chocolate bar.
I wouldn't be surprised if a baking soda volcano produces more energy than a black hole created in a particle accelerator.
Even if it would create a massive black hole, you`d be dead real quick, just don`t worry about it
Y'all can say whatever you want, I'll continue to be terrified of having a gaggle of baby black holes trying to rip my dick off
According to Xaonon's Hawking Radiation calculator, a microgram-sized black hole would evaporate in 0.6 Planck times.
"One Planck time" is the universe's definition of "instantly", and a microgram-sized black hole would evaporate in less time than THAT.
Particle accelerator black holes are a few decimal points smaller than a microgram. They evaporate SO MUCH FASTER than "instantly."
They'll poof faster than you can blink.
didnt they post it before?
Yeah, what's up with that?
It was private when i tried to view it.
i reported some mistakes...
A big thumbs up for the Interstellar reference. ;-)
RIP dear hawking
Real question, are Black Holes Even Alive?
Umm, no.
Is a chair even alive? No. A black hole is just a chair that has been compressed to to infinity.
It depends on which definition of alive you choose. Do they think and feel? Are they flesh and blood? No to both questions. They are alive in that they exist, are not inanimate, they are very dynamic and full of energy. They are not alive in the same way as a bird or an insect. But they are alive in the sense that they exist, are animated, are doing things.
James Barton But we can safely assume that the OP was talking about being a uni- or multi-cellular organism capable of feeding, producing, replicating, and going through distinct phases before death.
I understand what he was talking about. I was being somewhat symbolic.
As a binge watching mobile user, I can't click on the annotation for another one of your videos on the screen. Sometimes they show up in the recommended videos, but sometimes they can be a bit more difficult to find. One suggestion that I have to make the viewing experience more seem less is to put the link of the annotated video into the description for us mobile users. You guys do a great job, this is just one nit picky thing I noticed. Thanks!
Reupload? Or... deja vu?
Mandela Effect.
+Spyro Tek wats that
micklemore I can't really explain, but RUclips it and there will be some interesting videos,
It was reuploaded. Uploaded earlier, became a private vid for a moment before released.
The video was gobbled up by a black hole at first. Then the black hole evaporated!
HOLY SHIT!!!
That is so fucking smart dude...I’ve heard about the vacuum energy and seen videos on it...but the fact that Steven hawking thought of the idea of a black holes ability to separate those pairs is freaking awesome
It gave me chills ;-;
Black Holes Change into white holes which spits out all the things it has sucked up so basically its the opposite of a black hole Btw all the planets it has sucked up causes collisions so yeah its crazy btw this is a theory i've heard so dont judge. Like if you liked these facts :D
We don't really know if white holes actually exist, and we certainly don't know if black holes turn into white holes. It sounds reasonable, but the extremes of space tend to shatter "reasonable" into a million shards.
darling DNews...of all possible colours in the spectrum...
0:47 why brown?
whats the matter with brown?
I don't know why but I read that in a southern accent
The Entity darlin' does it.
Friends 4ever well I guess it just is my wild imagination of sending a probe to Uranus and wondering what it's gonna be like
Friends 4ever i mean american southern accent
I looks much more orange than brown.
Guess what came in the mail today...
D news
Goteem
Do you prefer a long life of being depressed and lonely or a short meaningful life with a quick and painless death?
Eden E Probably the last of the two.
0:53 " we will never know what lies between the horizon and singularity unless you are Matthew Mcconaughey"😂😂
anyone who saw the movie "event horizon"???
+
Yea
Definitely make more of these videos. I love learning about this stuff, and you explain it all in such a good way. thumbs up.
Deja Vu?
Woah.. I mean yes.. Reupload
i saw Your profile pic on 9gag
I am not sure ether how about you
Deja vu is your familiar from the place but thats nit the place your thinking
How I got to this video.
Watched an anime video where he mentioned "No game No life" which led me to watch an episode of it -> To win a game they remove the coulomb force -> Which made me google it -> In an article it said that the removal of the force on earth would not create a nova as some people said -> Which made me google after pictures/videos of novas -> Which then made me remember watching a video from nasa where a black hole swallowed an entire star -> Which made me search for "Black Hole" here on youtube which showed me this video.
No one knows more about left over DNA than Kim Kardashian.
Fabled Thunder #superheadFTW
You got wrong where the virtual particles appear.
When both virtual particles appear inside the event horizon, none can get out.
But if one appears inside and the other appears a fraction of a nanometer further outwards, one is sucked in while the other can escape and, having no particle to annihilate, it becomes a real one and flies away, carrying energy (mass = energy) away.
Also, the particle does not carry negative energy, because that would mean that some other thing (the black hole) has to gain energy so that the total amount stays constant. This means that the particle has positive energy and positive mass. Also, negative energy is doubt to exist at all, because it implies negative mass, which would imply gravitional pushing which makes things weird.
Thank you for fixing the animations lol
The galaxy still rotates backwards 50 seconds in...
*****
The event horizon was animated compleatly wrong.
Water? Evaporates. Gasoline? Evaporates. Black holes? Evaporates. My brain after this video? eVaPoRaTeS!
I wanna be in one of those
No you don't
Shree Jan yeah me too.. that would be the only hole i've not been.
Earth: Hello Mars!! Mars: Hi Man!!!! Pluto Wearing mlg glasses* Pluto: blackholes cant get me!! blackhole: sucks in pluto lol
muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurph‼
0:56 THAT MATHEW MACONAUGHEY JOKE!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Recently Nasa saw something escape a Black Hole!
They are called excretion disks.
kalidesu *accretion discs, I think
Two physics points:
The video states that mass must be entering the black hole. That is not strictly true as energy can be entering the black hole as well.
Currently there is too much cosmic microwave background radiation to allow a black hole of any notable size to evaporate due to hawking radiation.
Second, the vides says that the virtual particle pair is formed between the event horizon and the singularity. This is not at all true. If they both formed on the other side of the event horizon they would both stay in the black hole and we would never be able to observe them.
Hawking radiation occurs when a particle pair is formed outside of the event horizon and one particle falls into the black hole while the other does not. Both are formed on the outside of the event horizon.
If I may, make a suggestion for your show?! Could you, if & when you have the time and patience, make 3 versions of each episode...1) For your normal viewers, with your current content...2) One version for "Dummies"...3) Finally, one version for single celled organisms, like myself to get a vague idea on wtf you're talking about!...
Thankyou in advance, for your time.
CERN 2020: There! I have successfully created a micro black hole which will allow me to examine the HAWKING radiation to... wait, why are you growing now?
+1 for "A place where physics flips us the bird and takes a holiday!"
again I am learning more from this channel in 30 minutes than I am in my 1hr 30 min classes
Love the LHC and theoretical physics vids. It is hard for an average joe like myself to find and stay up to date with the newer/developing theories out there. Keep 'em coming.
Actually I fell for science from my very childhood. I definitely like the video. Love this.
wait a sec so since stars that have a great amount of mass turn into black holes right? so umm if the black hole started to loose its mass then wouldn't it turn back into a star then? :P
Wouldnt it also be possible that the virtual particle with "positive" energy/mass falls into the black hole, and the negative one escapes, thus effectively reloading the black hole with mass out of nowhere? And if so, wouldnt both effects expect to neutralize each other?
@StephenHawking, please clarify!
I believe that for a black hole to eventually lose mass through "evaporation" (aka Hawking Radiation), it must already be observed to be losing mass. It does not make sense for the object to eventually just "begin" to move toward a state of entropy, it must always be moving toward it. Unless we are able to observe the change in black hole mass, I do not believe we know how black holes will reach their demise.
We say that when a body "A" moves near the speed of light with respect to body "B", the Time for "A" moves slower compared to "B". But when "A" is moving near the speed of light, so is "B" with respect to "A", because motion and speed is always relative. So, how does time for "A" slow down compared to "B"? Am I missing something?
I think that the exact same "Evaporation" process that is supposed to reduce the mass of a blackhole is the reason that the blackhole's mass doesn't get reduced. Here's why: We are assuming that only the negative virtual particles are going to end up on the event horizon side, but there is no reason why the positive virtual particle can't end up on the event horizon side too, thereby adding mass to the blackhole and taking mass away from our universe. So this "Evaporation" process is balanced by it's own "Condensation" process.
0:55 love that interstellar reference.
- Warm water rises > Evaporates
- Warm air rises > Plasma
Warm plasma does not rise nor does it fall.
Therefore there is no buoyancy in Space.
Nothing is falling into the Sun.
Nothing is falling into the Galaxy.
Black Holes do not exist.
Space is filled w/ Plasma.
Space is spun around in circles via each EMF.
When a star dies, because of its mass, gravity implodes the star so strong, it turns into a black hole, sucking in everything around it, the more matter it sucks in, the stronger and bigger it gets. When there's no matter to suck in anymore, the gravity will lose its gravitational pull, thus allowing all the matter inside to slowly expand outward, and the black hole disappears, spreading the matter to create more stars and more black holes creating another galaxy, because matter cannot be destroyed.
Funnels that lead to a center point is a funnel ball A black hole model that is not just one funnel
I keep hearing how quirks pop in and out of existence or from nothing yet if they are simply "popping" up in space time, that is not popping up out of nothing.
If the pairs appear between the event horizon and the singularity like stated at t=2m30s none of them could escape to the outside (from the perspective of a stationary coordinate bookkeeper there is not even space or time inside the Schwarzschild-radius, so the pairs appear outside the horizon with the nearer particle getting trapped and asymptotically approaching the horizon while the other particle escapes, roughly speaking)
Yes! Please have more videos like this! The more complex the video, the more we learn. Thank you!
Hawking radiation could even be used to generate power from black holes by capturing the radiation in collectors. but you would need a small black hole which is radiating intensely and you would need to feed it to keep it's power output stable. not doing so would cause the black hole to radiate more and more as it shrank until it explodes with enough force to take out most of the solar system (yes you read that right, most of the solar system).
aside from entanglement, wouldn't a particle sitting at the very edge between no escape and escape have a probability of escape? Then after that particle escapes the reduced mass of the black hole would allow another particle to as well.
Hoooold on there bub. If the particle that fell into the black hole has a "negative" mass, wouldn't that mean that this "negative" mass keeps the black hole stable in much the same way it would a wormhole mouth or a warp bubble?
I love learning more quantum physics! Please, we need more!
Wait, so the negative particle falls into the black hole occasionally. Doesn't, equally often, a positive particle fall into the black hole as well? That would mean the balance is even, and black holes on average don't have to fade away? Or is there no real "positive" or "negative"?
was having an epiphany, but now its even more deep. Thanks!
You do know you have kinda big mistake there. The Hawking Radiation particle is created at the event horizon, or close to it, not between the singularity and the event horizon. Particles created beyond the event horizon, can't escape, but mass-less particles created at the event horizon, can have one partner escape, while the other sucked in.
Hadron Collider Scientist A: We are gonna lose funding if we dont actually do something other than smash particles together!
Stoned Hadron Collider Scientist: Dude, like I totally am, like understanding everyting right now... Like what if we are just INSIDE a black hole... Can black holes have babies? Do black holes have rights? Like do
BlackHoleLivesMatter?
Hadron Collider Scientist A: Your a genius! Baby black hole!!!
Oh Well, just gotta get hit by lightning when the particle accelerator turns on
he protecc he attacc, but most importantly, he SUCC
your entry is perfectly superb
I get that the math says the black hole *should* lose mass. But how does that *physically* happen? It seems to me that the only way it works is if the virtual particle has negative mass and it reaches the surface of the black hole and neutralizes some of the positive mass there. In that case, how would a kugelblitz evaporate? It's not possible to neutralize light with "anti-light" or something like that.
you should do more of these videos. you should do one on black hole firewall paradox
So the particle with negative energy that fell in the black hole is the same thing that will fuel us for to go in warp speed?
I love these topics and in depth analysis! Cant wait for the firewall paradox.
Wait, if a black hole can suck in particles with negative energy, it can also suck in those with positive energy, so on average, wouldn't an isolated black hole always keep a balance in mass?
And thus over billions of years (that's a really long time) the black hole would evaporate. For a super massive black hole it might last longer than the universe.
This dude looks like a skinny Hugh Mungus lmao
Wait why would it disappear? Wouldn't the singularity just become light enough that it wouldn't warp space time as much? Wouldn't it just be like a really small neutron star?
How does a black hole warp time ?
should I mention it is possible to get out once past the event horizon if the vehicle can produce a force greater than the force of gravity yielding a velocity away from the black hole and thus avoid the escape velocity.
Not necessarily. It would just have to counteract the gravitational force of the black hole; this doesn't have to be achieved through velocity.
Or so 20 years of science fiction has taught me.
''It will loose mass overall'' I was so hoping he would say this was called mass effect xD
Perhaps black holes are temporary portals into one of the infinite universes where a big bang has just occurred....
honestly I feel so relaxed after watching this ......bcoZ I came to know this interesting theory and that's cool ...
There is a logical paradox with black holes. If nothing can escape from them, how does the gravitational force get out?
What prevents the member of the pair which wasn't initially pulled into the black hole? Isn't it close enough to the event horizon that it would be immediately be sucked in too?
With black holes losing mass. What happens when the mass of a black hole falls below the critical mass to form a black hole? Would it then become something like a neutron star?
I am not entirely on board with this "making tiny black holes in the hadron collider" thing
So in the L.H.C do protons themselves break down into small particles or the small particles just pop up after the collision?
I really really really like your channel,
keep making cool videos
Ask how my brain feals?! My ears are the one taking damage from that beeping sound when you open your mouth. just kidding
Is hawking radiation just an different way of describing quantum particles escaping potential wells?
pretty much yes
Yup, about the same but with Hawking on it.
SpazzyMcGee1337 Ikr 😂😂😂
When the question you came to a video for is addressed in the first 5 seconds
Nice vid man
When my teacher showed this to my class the bird is what made the teacher laugh and everyone else 😂 it was so funny😂
always love learning new things
I thought the virtual particles are pairs of normal and anti-particles- hence why they destroy each other after. In the video it said that the particle that falls into the black hole must have negative energy, but if the above is the case couldn't the normal particle fall into the black hole and the anti-particle be expelled, thus adding mass to the black hole?
Lets imagine black hole losing its mass. I wonder at which point it stops being a black hole?
Imagine the last negative energy particle falling into singularity and making it disappear. That would mean that the singularity at that point had a mass equal to the particle that fell in. Which means that any negative energy virtual particle represents a black hole, right?
But what would happen if the tiny back hole didn't disappear but suddenly consume everything around it? 🤔 How can we contain a black hole and make sure it disappears? Can this backfire on us?
According to our understanding of black hole mathematics, it's impossible to create a stable, feeding black hole in a lab. But of course our understanding of black hole mathematics may be incorrect. If we are, the lead scientist will not have the chance to say "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
1.) So far, the blackholes we create always fall apart in a few seconds. They are unstable.
2.) Even if Scientists do create a stable one one day, nothing to worry about. The blackholes are soo tiny (as in the size of particles) that it's force would be too weak. It would take it nearly a 100 years just to suck up a Packet of Chips.
Feed them antimatter??
they don't die, they move on to the next guy
I always thought my head would pop, and if we went to the bottom of the ocean our heads would collapse into it's self
When a star starts becoming a black hole it gets more dencer and dencer then BOOM!!!!! Infinite density then black hole just too let you know Seeker.
Don't ever think about being inmortal, sir, because EVEN THE BLACHOLES, THE MONSTERS THAT RIP OFF ALL OUR KNOLWDEDGE ABOUT PHYSICS, CAN DIE.
If black holes have gravity, why do flat earthers say “Earth doesn’t have gravity”?