4:30 Schwarzschild did not choose r=0 to be the center of the solution or the center of the "black hole". He chose r=0 to be the event horizon. In fact, he chose an auxiliary quantity R^3=r^3 + alpha^3 with alpha=2GM/c^2 and r the "space" coordinate, so that r=0 is actually the horizon. He did not describe the interior, and set the "singularity" at the event horizon on purpose. It was Hilbert who later reinterpreted Schwarzschild's solution as we know it today, with r=0 the center. You can check this in Schwarzschild's original paper.
Bravo for your diligent search of the historical record. This is very much like Newton who defined F = dp/dt and not F=ma (Euler). Newton's dp/dt survived SR and GR, whereas Eulers F=ma, has proven wrong.
It's really nice to see you back again we missed your videos. Thanks for the interesting topic I'll probably have to watch it a couple times to understand it. P.S. the facial hair looks fantastic KEEP IT!!!
Length contraction is symmetrical not asymmetrical. That means that as a mass is accelerated, the head and the tail end contract towards the middle, the tail end does not contract to an uncontracted head. It doesn't matter if the word 'Special' or 'General' is placed in front of the word 'Relativity', length contraction remains symmetrical either way. This means that under the acceleration of gravitation, length contracts towards the Schwarzschild radius from both outside and within the Schwarzschild radius which means it contracts away from the three-dimensional oriented origin point of r = 0. As mass is always in a fourth-dimensional moving frame, it never exists at the three-dimensional oriented r = 0 which is the non-physical 'head' of a gravitational mass. The fourth-dimensional oriented origin point of r = 0 is the Schwarzschild radius. Choosing different coordinates is only done to get an intended result oriented to a three-dimensional origin point. As mass at the Schwarzschild radius must obtain c velocity, it must result in singularity as revealed by the Lorentz factor. Calling it an event horizon doesn't change this physical fact. If nothing at c velocity can escape it from within, nothing encountering it from outside can be any less than c velocity. This, of course, is a physical impossibility as c velocity mass requires infinite energy. ""Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality...for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily...due to the fact that...the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." -Albert Einstein (On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses; 1 October 1939 DOI: 10.2307 1968902 Corpus ID: 55495712) [What is the condition of mass at c velocity? What is the velocity of mass at the Schwarzschild radius? It is impossible to claim a result of singularity without choosing to ignore the Lorentz factor. Singularity requires c velocity mass and the Lorentz factor reveals c velocity mass to be unobtainable. In order for Einstein to have been wrong, either c velocity mass is not necessary for obtaining the Schwarzschild radius (where mass must indeed have c velocity) or mass can in fact obtain c velocity without singularity and the Lorentz factor is simply invalid. Otherwise, relativity prohibits a mass from being contracted to its Schwarzschild radius (γ Mv/c²) in that relativity prohibits a mass from obtaining c velocity (γ Mv).]
I love your videos. This one is quite the crash course! A question for you, please, or for anyone: Suppose that instead of a singularity, there is an "extremely small ball" of concentrated mass, at the center of black holes; then, because this ball occupies a non-zero amount of space (or time!), there should be extremely small gravitational fluctuations deviating from the perfection of the formulas, in a black hole gravitational field, that we can measure, if we have sensitive enough equipment, analogous to how LIGO is very sensitive and can measure gravitational waves. Should we be able to measure some extremely small deviations like that? We should look into that, ASAP. if it pans out, then a simple finite variable or constant is included in the formulas, and: the infinities beautifully disappear, becoming a non-issue. Would love to know your thoughts. Thanks.
the coordinate singularity is a consequence for how, at the reference point of an stationary observer free from the black hole's gravity, nothing ever enters the black hole, but, the second coordinate system, shows it in the reference frame of an observer falling towards the black hole!!
Newtonian gravity also has a singularity at r = 0. The idea the Newton is simple, nicely behaved, and completely understood makes for an attractive contrast with GR, but is far from accurate.
But if you don't just pick a place Inside the event horizon and instead incrementally approach from the exterior, you can't move closer than unity, the event horizon has a propagation angle of 90° . Everything goes in orbit
No one has been to the centre a of a black hole and returned to confirm whether or not a singularity exists there and there's no known experiment to test for this (yet?). So, while the maths and theories point to a singularity existing at the centre of a black hole, there may not be. If new theories and then experiments confirm this, physics will take another leap again.
I don't believe the singularity thing. If all black holes had an infinitely small point with infinite gravity, all black holes would be the same size. They are not, therefore my theory (although I don't know how to prove it...) Is that there is a solid object down there at the centre. I did meet a black hole expert once and he said I was right, but people keep talking about singularities....
Singularities don't exist, they are just the problems we have and we don't know how to solve it so we call it a singular point or singularity, to solve it we need quantum theory of gravity, string does a great work but is philosophically, and experimentally absurd so we need a new theory and hence the work is ongoing
hey, would you be so kind as to take a look at Space-Time-Ultra, a model I worked on for cosmology, based on Lorentz-like transformation that causes expansion? and let me know what you think?
4:30 Schwarzschild did not choose r=0 to be the center of the solution or the center of the "black hole". He chose r=0 to be the event horizon. In fact, he chose an auxiliary quantity R^3=r^3 + alpha^3 with alpha=2GM/c^2 and r the "space" coordinate, so that r=0 is actually the horizon. He did not describe the interior, and set the "singularity" at the event horizon on purpose. It was Hilbert who later reinterpreted Schwarzschild's solution as we know it today, with r=0 the center. You can check this in Schwarzschild's original paper.
Bravo for your diligent search of the historical record. This is very much like Newton who defined F = dp/dt and not F=ma (Euler). Newton's dp/dt survived SR and GR, whereas Eulers F=ma, has proven wrong.
OHHHHHH YEAH! Welcome back, G. Also, I have this equation tattooed on my arm.
Glad you are back, I was afraid I will have only PBS and Sabine to listen to.
Nobody expected this video
😂😂
Especially me!
Recent result for gravitational time dilation D = exp(G×M/(R×c²)) showed that this value is finite for any radius, thus, no event horizon exists.
It's really nice to see you back again we missed your videos. Thanks for the interesting topic I'll probably have to watch it a couple times to understand it.
P.S. the facial hair looks fantastic KEEP IT!!!
I love your videos man. Keep it up!
Length contraction is symmetrical not asymmetrical. That means that as a mass is accelerated, the head and the tail end contract towards the middle, the tail end does not contract to an uncontracted head. It doesn't matter if the word 'Special' or 'General' is placed in front of the word 'Relativity', length contraction remains symmetrical either way. This means that under the acceleration of gravitation, length contracts towards the Schwarzschild radius from both outside and within the Schwarzschild radius which means it contracts away from the three-dimensional oriented origin point of r = 0. As mass is always in a fourth-dimensional moving frame, it never exists at the three-dimensional oriented r = 0 which is the non-physical 'head' of a gravitational mass. The fourth-dimensional oriented origin point of r = 0 is the Schwarzschild radius. Choosing different coordinates is only done to get an intended result oriented to a three-dimensional origin point. As mass at the Schwarzschild radius must obtain c velocity, it must result in singularity as revealed by the Lorentz factor. Calling it an event horizon doesn't change this physical fact. If nothing at c velocity can escape it from within, nothing encountering it from outside can be any less than c velocity. This, of course, is a physical impossibility as c velocity mass requires infinite energy.
""Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality...for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily...due to the fact that...the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
-Albert Einstein
(On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses;
1 October 1939 DOI: 10.2307 1968902 Corpus ID: 55495712)
[What is the condition of mass at c velocity? What is the velocity of mass at the Schwarzschild radius? It is impossible to claim a result of singularity without choosing to ignore the Lorentz factor. Singularity requires c velocity mass and the Lorentz factor reveals c velocity mass to be unobtainable. In order for Einstein to have been wrong, either c velocity mass is not necessary for obtaining the Schwarzschild radius (where mass must indeed have c velocity) or mass can in fact obtain c velocity without singularity and the Lorentz factor is simply invalid. Otherwise, relativity prohibits a mass from being contracted to its Schwarzschild radius (γ Mv/c²) in that relativity prohibits a mass from obtaining c velocity (γ Mv).]
I love your videos. This one is quite the crash course! A question for you, please, or for anyone: Suppose that instead of a singularity, there is an "extremely small ball" of concentrated mass, at the center of black holes; then, because this ball occupies a non-zero amount of space (or time!), there should be extremely small gravitational fluctuations deviating from the perfection of the formulas, in a black hole gravitational field, that we can measure, if we have sensitive enough equipment, analogous to how LIGO is very sensitive and can measure gravitational waves. Should we be able to measure some extremely small deviations like that? We should look into that, ASAP. if it pans out, then a simple finite variable or constant is included in the formulas, and: the infinities beautifully disappear, becoming a non-issue. Would love to know your thoughts. Thanks.
If you look at the derivation, the formula would hold (exactly!) everywhere outside of this ball, therefore it would be immesurable.
Great to see you back with more physics.
the coordinate singularity is a consequence for how, at the reference point of an stationary observer free from the black hole's gravity, nothing ever enters the black hole, but, the second coordinate system, shows it in the reference frame of an observer falling towards the black hole!!
What happens for other metrics for "distance"?
Still, a singularity of 0/0 is different from x/0, as the limit of the former usually gives something sensible and of the latter gives infinity...
Okay, so why is this suddenly a problem. For centuries, we have used Newton "law" of Gravatation, which also has a "singulariy."
Welcome Back with More Stuffed Mind with Physics 😊🎉🎉🎉
Expecting a vedeo about Hawkins radiation!
Newtonian gravity also has a singularity at r = 0. The idea the Newton is simple, nicely behaved, and completely understood makes for an attractive contrast with GR, but is far from accurate.
Great video, but the haze casting doesn't work for me.
But if you don't just pick a place Inside the event horizon and instead incrementally approach from the exterior, you can't move closer than unity, the event horizon has a propagation angle of 90° .
Everything goes in orbit
ruclips.net/video/XY5s73I9LI8/видео.html
May be solve the problem by the complex polar coordinate system etc but just try try...
May be its donut shape like thermo angular spining clockwise and anti clockwise like spinor or legurre gaussian orbital angular momentum? @parth#
First comment lessgoo....., btw love your videos parth keep it up!!!!
Opa! New video!
something like complex circle polar coordinates? I don't know la
No one has been to the centre a of a black hole and returned to confirm whether or not a singularity exists there and there's no known experiment to test for this (yet?). So, while the maths and theories point to a singularity existing at the centre of a black hole, there may not be. If new theories and then experiments confirm this, physics will take another leap again.
I don't believe the singularity thing. If all black holes had an infinitely small point with infinite gravity, all black holes would be the same size. They are not, therefore my theory (although I don't know how to prove it...) Is that there is a solid object down there at the centre. I did meet a black hole expert once and he said I was right, but people keep talking about singularities....
Singularities don't exist, they are just the problems we have and we don't know how to solve it so we call it a singular point or singularity, to solve it we need quantum theory of gravity, string does a great work but is philosophically, and experimentally absurd so we need a new theory and hence the work is ongoing
@@Toji625 Good reply thank you!
Anybody fancy reading my paper? Check for errors etc l want to get published.
Please return to old style, backborad just isnt the same.
Yeah good to see Parth in form again
Bro keep this pace up❤❤
I think you should remove the wood border
How many agree👇👇👇
hey, would you be so kind as to take a look at Space-Time-Ultra, a model I worked on for cosmology, based on Lorentz-like transformation that causes expansion? and let me know what you think?