Penrose has an extremely profound mind and everything he says must be deeply analyzed and understood before criticizing it, before he's usually correct.
@@lreadlResurrected well consciousness has an evident quantum quality, being a superposition of possibilities, don't you feel it like that? Besides, there's evidence of hyper luminiscensce, which is a quantum phenomena, produced by micro tubules. There's a fresh pbs episode about it, look it up, fascinating stuff
@@ekekonoise I'm a layman, but as I understand it we're talking about activities within a molecule and moreover, a molecule that is not exclusive to the brain's environment. That leaves me skeptical, but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know.
@@lreadlResurrectedyou are mixing up Penrose' beliefs with those of Stuart Hameroff. Stick to what Penrose actually says about that topic and it is harder to refute. I don't know why everyone comes back to Tegmark's tired dismissal years ago. That was just lazy.
Very brave to show massive physics channels getting it wrong. May you not be affected by any backlash from the fans. I really appreciate your willingness to get into the weeds and explain what the disagreement is.
@@Cat_Woods thanks. So far no backlash. I'm hoping they correct themselves. To be fair I think only Sabine said Kerr was right. The others just explained Kerrs argument as best they could without spotting Kerrs error
@@PhilHalper1 Sabine often opines on subjects that she doesn't understand. Some of her presentations on engineering topics are barely undergraduate standard. That said, I greatly admire her, particularly her keen observations on how research in general, not just physics, has become a self-sustaining industry disconnected from solving important problems.
Sir Roger Penrose is amazing in so many regards but what defy imagination is his simple way of speaking about complicated subjects and make them clear. I hope to be as alert as he is when I'll get his age. Thanks for this video, great and interesting subject 🤗 as Always 🤩
Self-respecting cosmology students read and criticize Penrose's published works. This is for people who want to be entertained for the next 20 minutes.
@@PhilHalper1 WLC's statements about space-time curvature and singularities are nearly identical to those or Penrose. However when Craig talks about them you assume that he is wrong and interview a group of people to refute him. Oh dear.
I'm currently reviewing 2 books I've had since their release, Shadows of the Mind & The Emperor's New Mind by Professor, Sir Roger Penrose, for a thread I'll write soon as I've spent most of my life studying mathematical physics as an amateur (studied O level in both). I'm a big fan of Roger Penrose because I like his original thinking & visual spatial methods of communication so have a timeless quality. Regards Claire
It is, at least to me it is (I don't think there's a single video in this channel I haven't avidly watched and then liked). However when you do long format docus and publish only a few per year, you can't really compete or even compare with weekly shorter (and sometimes shallower) pop-sci format.
Haven't finished watching the video, but I will say that I appreciate that a video like this, with a critical look at Kerr's paper, has come out. At first, I was hyped up when I first saw Kerr's paper (admittedly part of the reason is that I am desperate for a breakthrough in theoretical physics 😬), but reading it I was quite unimpressed, and left confused at what Kerr wrote that either hadn't already been addressed long ago (when the definition of a "singularity" in GR was established in the 60s, and is well explained in the Hawking & Ellis book from 1973), or that simply didn't address what Penrose's theorem actually says. But anyway, I hoped there was more to Kerr's paper than I got the impression of, considering that we were talking about, well, Roy Kerr, after all. For that reason, I was happy when I saw that the paper was finally mentioned by popular science media. But after having thought about it more and reading from the perspective from other theoretical physicists, confirming part of my suspicion and also clearing up exactly what the null geodesics that Kerr considered corresponded to in the Kerr spacetime, I came to the conclusion, that, indeed, the paper was hollow and based on a misunderstanding. So now I've come around to say I'm glad to finally see popular science media that present a critical look at his paper! Edit: Great job interviewing relevant physicists on the area, especially Penrose himself!
Great contribution this video is. Also, I might add that it is trivial to prove that an affine parameter is always a linear function of proper time (not coordinate time, but proper time). So if one is bounded so is the other. One can imagine their relationship as this: We can use a rotated line (affine parameter: applicable to light too) to index points on the original line (proper time: which for light is unusable); The reason we use the rotated line is that the original line had a bad/difficult/unusable direction (the so-called light-like direction); Sorry Prof. Kerr
Hey Phil, congrats on this episode. I've just got a few comments. Did you approach Roy Kerr to see if he would contribute to the discussion? Secondly, was/is there any bad blood between Kerr and Penrose? It seems slightly strange that Kerr came up with this supposed bombshell shortly after Penrose's Noble prize. Was Kerr annoyed that he didn't get a slice of it? Does anyone know?
Thanks to great physicists, explaining with examples,I could finally grasp the meaning of affine parameter of null geodesic that has been in news recently!
@@peterrauth118 - Maybe. I'm not mathematician enough: to me it's just a form of logic and thus it may be necessarily incomplete by its own nature (our brainchild after all).
@@LuisAldamiz Ah ha! The great debate, which has been raging for quite some time: Does mathematics exist outside of human thought, or did we create it? Personally I think the former, partly because it seems to me that Number Theory would exist whether there were self-aware beings or not.
Nothing & Everything: Several hypothesis and theories propose that at some point in time, all matter and mass in the universe will be swallowed by black holes, then all of the information about the matter is evaporated as hawking radiation and becomes photons. Roger Penrose has a very strong hypothesis called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology that I highly recommend studying. In this scenario, spacetime ceases to exist because photons do not experience time or space. In the absence of spacetime, all photons become a single, unified photon capable of exceeding the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement. This leads to an infinite overlap of all points in the universe, creating a paradox where the universe simultaneously ends and begins. The exact moment everything becomes a photon is the exact moment everything becomes matter again, demonstrating a paradox where GR and QM overlap, and the universe exists in a state of both physical and non-physical infinity. This is an extreme scenario where all matter in the universe converts to photons, resulting in a universe composed entirely of massless, virtual particles. Given that photons travel at the speed of light and do not experience time or space. This conversion of matter into energy leads to the cessation of spacetime. Due to quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the absence of spacetime constraints, all photons unify into a single photon capable of exceeding the speed of light, leading to the simultaneous end and rebirth of spacetime. This is where E=mc², and m=E/c² come into play. c² is the square of the speed of light, which only happens when there is no vacuum. 1. What we know about Photons - Photons are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light. According to special relativity, photons do not experience time or space; there is no interval between their point of emission and absorption in their frame of reference. If the universe becomes a unified photon, spacetime, as traditionally understood, ceases to exist. - The cessation of spacetime means that the conventional dimensions of time and space lose their meaning because there is no mass to curve spacetime, and photons themselves do not require spacetime to exist in the conventional sense. 2. The Singularity Illusion - In a photon-only universe, without the usual constraints of spacetime, all photons can be considered as part of a single, unified quantum state. This unified state implies that all photons are entangled with each other, sharing the same quantum properties and existing as a singular entity, resulting in a super position. - Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous correlations between particles regardless of distance. In the absence of spacetime, the distance and time separation between entangled photons becomes meaningless, allowing them to behave as a single, unified photon. 3. c² - With spacetime ceasing to exist, the unified photon state is not constrained by the speed of light limit. In a spacetime-less state, photons can "tunnel" across the entirety of what would be considered the universe without restriction. This process is known as quantum tunneling. - This unified photon state also allows quantum entanglement to exist simultaneously across all points, effectively exceeding the speed of light. The photon’s wave function would encompass the entire universe instantaneously, creating a state where all spatial and temporal coordinates overlap, and the moment the wave function collapses is the moment the physical universe is created. 4. Endless cycle of Birth, Death, & Rebirth - In this state where all photons are unified and spacetime has ceased, photons can interact through quantum fluctuations and collisions, leading to pair production. This process would spontaneously generate particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electrons and positrons), reintroducing mass into the universe. - The moment mass is reintroduced, spacetime is reinstated. The paradox arises because the exact moment spacetime ceases is also the moment it begins again. The absence of spacetime allows the unified photon to exceed conventional limits, while its interactions simultaneously recreate matter, restoring spacetime. Time is the measurement of matter as it moves in space. In a universe where all matter converts into photons, the cessation of spacetime allows for the formation of a single, unified photon state. This state enables photons to exceed the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement, resulting in an infinite overlap of all points and moments in the universe. The universe reaches a paradoxical state where its end and rebirth occur simultaneously. The instant spacetime ceases due to the lack of mass, the unified photons vibratory rate exceeds the speed of light leading to the immediate re-emergence of matter and spacetime. At the exact moment when everything becomes photons and spacetime ceases, photons unify and exceed the speed of light, creating a state of infinite simultaneity where the end of the universe overlaps with its beginning. The universe’s fabric collapses into a singular quantum state, where the cessation of spacetime is indistinguishable from its rebirth through pair production. This unified state of everything is consciousness. - Physics falls apart This hypothesis challenges the traditional limits of physics, suggesting that without spacetime, the universe can transcend its normal physical laws. The super position state of the unified photon, enabled by quantum entanglement and tunneling, allows for behavior beyond conventional speed limits and dimensional constraints. - The Paradox The unified photon state’s ability to exceed the speed of light in the absence of spacetime leads to a condition where all events and locations are superimposed. The instantaneous reintroduction of matter via pair production ensures that the universe does not remain in this state. Instead, it transitions back to a state with spacetime, creating a loop where the cessation and existence of spacetime are one and the same. - Paradox The cessation of spacetime, combined with the unified photon state’s super position behavior and quantum properties, creates a paradoxical infinity where the universe’s physical and non-physical states coexist. The concept of time does not pass between these two states, creating a moment that is both an end and a beginning, a state of infinite simultaneity and unified existence.
I remain puzzled. The problem for me is the statement that light experiences no Affine Time. The obvious example is the red shift caused by the expansion of space through which it moves. Though I would also wonder about the change that occurs during its creation and as it interacts with some mass.
Time depends on the observer. So light can red-shift or be created as seen by a normal observer but if one could put a clock on the photon itself, there would be no passage of time ...
This is an excellent and instructive video. But it would be much easier to follow if the transcript was edited. This is straightforward to do, if a little time consuming. Many Thanks! 👍👍👍
Does anyone know of a technical paper that presents the refutations in this video? I have searched on the archive and I can't find one. This the only place I've seen this, and I've searched everywhere for a technical discussion.
Here’s what I think: ThirdEyeTyrone (look him up if you don’t know him) proposes that singularities are an element of our perception. He made the example that in a viewing field, singularities exist at infinitely far away points in that view field… we know this to be trivially true…and that this doesn’t necessarily mean there exists some physical singularity it’s a description of the limit of our perception of information. In this sense, a black hole singularity might actually be real, it’s just us observers observing it CANT perceive it and so for all intents and purposes it appears like a singularity. Aside from being a correspondence between observation and perception (in line with complimentarity) it also is a statement that black holes are information constructs, and that this is fundamental.
I listen to TET, his manner of speaking reminds me of Terrence McKenna, but his content is firmly in the realm of Metaphysics. Don't get me wrong, it has it's place, right next to physics and philosophy in human thought, and is necessary to probe the boundaries of what is known and unknown. In this instance, precise mathematical models are needed to make any meaningful predictions. Consider this: It seems to me that Penrose' own CCC hypothesis, is contingent on what he is arguing against here, with singularity. NULL, as with infinity, may only be eternally approached in the 'real' world. If 'scale' is taken as a fourth, infinite spatial dimension, with an associated time dilation, wouldn't the singularity issue go away?.. as space and time 'shrink' eternally toward an infinitesimal point, that is never 'reached'.
@@David.C.Velasquez in response to you consideration: yes I think changing the dimension is going to yield different answers. Similar procedures are followed in projective geometry, and other places, like saying building an oracle to a Turing machine is a hyper computer. Those constructs though are not “real” in that we can’t construct them and you can consider that as a limitation of our observation and therefor limit of our perception as 3d observers. We can also consider that black holes might be infinite dimensional in a Hilbert space and there might not be any representation that doesn’t contain a singularity. But ya, basically when we consider that we get different answers by changing dimension, we are constructing different kinds of observers that could perceive no singularity, but we can’t physically construct that observer, in the same way that we can’t build a hyper computer.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Great points, but as '3d observers' our limitation is only to translation in 3 spatial dimensions. Our perception has been enhanced, with telescopes and microscopes, to perceive scale as such, we just can't travel along it dimensionally without falling into a gravity well.
I would love if you did a video on the EP equals epr paper by maldacena and the difference in looking at an object from the outside or from observing it from within. Also how the complexity inside of a black hole can increase at a rapid pace. Which is one of the reasons they say you cannot Traverse a wormhole. Personally I always thought when an electron and positron come into being there is some sort of Wormhole between them which apparently is something they're studying.
What has Sabine ever contributed to science, apart from her YT channel? She is not even in the same scientific league as Penrose yet when you hear her talking, she seems to think she is.. Seems in this case, she didn't understand some textbook basics and just jumped onto the issue to stay relevant.
Sabine has made some good contributions to science, but nowhere near the level of Penrose. However, her career (and presumably income) now appears to be running a RUclips channel. This means she tries to drive a lot of traffic and use fake controversies to that end. Her shameless inclusion of Hawking in this particular story is simply to obtain clicks: Hawking has only tangential relevance to the particular Penrose theorem .... but Sabine wants more traffic and links her narrative to Hawking. Yet another tangent that confuses her story and her audience
She's get's kick out of provoking big shots. She successfully managed to grow her channel by being different, though she has ruined it by fondness for engagement bait and cringiness. I unsubscribed from her channel recently, she now basically dump post garbage now.
@@coorz64right, she's just a face infront of a camera, she doesn't write her own script. She's just a science major picked up by a film team to be the face of their entertainment science channel, and to give it credability
hahaha, physics is all done underground and in extreme silence these days. And they claim to investigate the big bang? If you ask me, this is nonesense.
Well, we now know that much of our theory of the Big bang is wrong. Penrose is also wrong. Physicists that I respect the most. Will tell you that when your formulas go to a singularity, it suggests that you're missing part of The puzzle
With due respect to all participants _ 1.Trajectory depends on time. Correct 2.What is proper time as mentioned by Sir.Penrose can be supported by - 3. This proper time is independent of observer. It depends on universe. For our universe flow of time is constant for all observers in 4D but in its 3D space which is a holographic view of 4D the curve changes. Actually in 4D there is no change of time and for our universe it is size of Planck hole. It is constant for all observers. The 3D hologram is space only. Not space time. It is explained by space time equivelance law. This can be verified experimentally.with a formula interpreted by Hubble's expansion.But the paper was rejected. That can be used in this time line problem of black holes. 4. Mass when goes deep in to singularity,it looses mass and finally become Photon with zero mass.(As mentioned by Penrose).But Photon is also a tiny Black hole. What about singularity in it? 5. The solution lies in quantum mechanics that interpret the significance of signal and its importance in transfermations. That is the boundary that links quantum mechanics and General Relativity through special relativity.
Always this wave of ridiculously reverent and exuberant comments from random accounts. It’s like blog comment spam or fake Amazon reviews. And the creator always likes them and never constructive dissenting views. RUclips science.
This is one-sided. What does Kerr have to say and what do other physicists that aren't so enamored with black holes or relativity say? After all, relativity has a lot of ridiculous notions and it's just an interpretation of observations with a controversial history of inconsistencies up to this day.
@@PhilHalper1 Usually when critics respond to an original the there is at least one reply and if needed a longer exchange can happen. This gives us a better idea how good the arguments really are. So instead of making excuses, bring them on!
As is normal in science, Kerr presented his ideas in a paper for evaluation by his peers. The paper has been found to contain a fundamental error and so will not get traction, and probably won't be published in a good journal. That is good science and good scientific method. As to your other point: I am not sure what you mean. An example would help. Relativity contains much that is counterintuitive but it is not inconsistent.
Even if actual singularities are permitted in GR as solutions to realistic matter distributions, it does not mean you have to "quantize gravity". A singularity is not really an incompleteness, it only means the time evolution becomes non-deterministic. But just think about that for one millisecond! You are telling me quantum mechanics (as presently widely understood) is nondeterministic. But isn't that exactly what you just said you did not enjoy about GR singularities? You cannot talk out both sides of your mouth like that and have my respect! As Lenny Susskind often says these days, Gravity/GR _is already a quantum theory!_ The missing ingredient here is non-trivial spacetime topology. But that's a quantum theory obtained from GR --- akin to a particle postulate (it inserts a Planck constant into GR), which is not normally presumed in most GR textbooks treatments, to their detriment, except spacetime topology is extremely gnarly (the realm of 4-manifolds) so a textbook author can be forgiven.
Now, this.. is interesting. Hope this format, and video, blows up. It would spark a really important conversation. Link this to all of them! U all are going to farm views while providing good info and content. After this I can confidently say that I finally see Time as an axis, exactly as Space... even before this I thaught to have a really good grasp on it but now it's for sure better, thanks!
I thought the implication was not that the finite piece of a geodesic is infinite but an open interval. In my defense, a finite open interval is a lot like an infinite one, but it is still something I misunderstood in the summary of the article.
You raise many issues ... a finite open interval can be mapped to an infinite one, and that is, in a sense par of Kerr's error. The finite open interval is defined by the affine parameter, while the time coordinate maps this to an infinite extent. The time coordinate is unphysical while the affine parameter, and the geodesic, can be extended beyond the singular limit of the time coordinate. This is a signal that using the time coordinate is bad.
Singularities are not logic as if you accept those you have to be consequent, meaning SpaceTime is the bottom of Reality! Wich is very unlikely since quantum mechanics already show that with its precense. You already see that at the edge of a black hole, Relativity tells time stops, quantum mechanics tells no, entropy, temp and energy is not zero, so with this all Time should be astronomic slow but not zero. The edge of a black hole might be a hybrid as system or probably even more complex! GR does not tell the whole story!
@@PhilHalper1 Yes true. I hope we find the missing puzzle pieces, that might be more the Quantum gravity. It seems we clearly have a blanc at our perception of the foundation of reality.
hi this is really interesting, thanks. did you interview Penrose yourself or do you have the source of the original interview? I am after an official "feedback", if it exists, from Roger Penrose about Kerr's paper, which, even if only a pre-print, is a written statement that got quite famous.
@@PhilHalper1 thanks, just for the sake of my understanding, you mean that you have interviewed Roger Penrose, Jose Senovilla,Abhai Ashtekar, Jerome Quintin, Ghazal Gheshnizjani and Nicholas Warner ? Thanks!
@@PhilHalper1 I didn't know that it hadn't been published. As to it almost certainly won't be, don't be too sure. Plenty of wrong papers get rejected (I've reviewed some of them, as have my colleagues), but are published anyway, sometimes in respectable journals.
I may not be the best at understanding physics, so I can't comment much on that. But for one I hope to have the same level of intelligence as Penrose as I grow older... and the skydiving shots at 3:28 make my stomach feel weird, that's crazyyy
How can Kerr talk about a geodesic when the space-time gravity well has become fully perpendicular (from the singularity)? How can Kerr talk about continuing time when time has terminated in a Planck time string (singularity)?
What puzzles me about this video (apart from all the science.. I soon gave up) is who the lady presenter is - because she doesn't look like a "Phil Halper".
Phil, unlike others, is quite rigorous in his approach. Most of the pop sci channels eg sabine, pbs etc are desperate for new content and clicks. therefore they pick up anything they find then blow it out of proportion, without in-depth understanding of various topics. I always advise my students to not take popsci channels seriously.
I'm not 100%sure that it's fair to say, that Kerr is wrong in a situation , where physics exists only on the level of math. Inside a BH there are only mathematical solutions, one can glue any kind of spacetime there and still get a mathematically correct description that could be in disagreement with the statement that null geodesics end (e.g. glueing a deSitter spacetime there). The problem is , that it is unmeasurable with our current knowledge, thus such a heated discussion is not necessarily meaningful. Still , great video, with clear arguments on the "mainstream cosmology" of black holes.
I am so grateful for the hard work put in to make this. As ever it demonstrates that we should not rely on the authority of any one scientist (the communicators mentioned have all done very good work in the past) but it is necessary to do the herd work in addressing the substance of any argument. I have no expertise to adjudicate this particular issue but I am coming away better informed about the substance.
Phil did all the hard work and strives to make a clear and accurate representation of the science (and scientists). It is a pleasure to have been part of this.
Love these videos! I am uneducated in these topics, but love listening/learning about them. I find your channel to be a great resource for learning about new things. I knew (generally, no details) what a geodesic was, but never heard of an affine parameter. Thanks Phil!
Is it possible that physicists, and especially physicists with extra-large mathematical skills, can at some point switch to doing pure mathematics, instead of physics, - without knowing it?
Honestly, I have always had that feeling that both Sabine and that PBS guy, they both talk in such a arrogant way, portraying themselves as know-it-all, that they simply cannot be true and real experts. They make mistakes that even undergrad GR students don't. Thanks for confirming and exposing them!
They're quite good and I often like the work they do very much. Sometimes, however, I have to disdain or even actively dislike what they say, especially when Sabine goes all "fusion is real" and "hydrogen energy is unreal", which I know well is the other way around.
I think the PBS guy is fine in his area of expertise, but the show frequently requires him to speak outside of it. Kind of like Michio Kaku moonlighting on all those news programs but not nearly as bad.
Maybe its more a matter that these sort of academic disagreements are typical at the frontiers of science, particularly here when the physical embodiment would seem to be an impossibility, and also beyond the veil of the (also theoretical) event horizon where observation would be impossible to report back. In the Past this would play out beyond the event horizon (or firewall) of high skill set academia only visible to those with the trained intellect specific to the topic. Now that we have a window granted by populising You Tube guides. but its a case of pick you favorite guide, rather than having any better insights into the applicability of Affine time, in this particular case anyway.
Time is intimately related to space. When you can't talk about time, you can't talk about space. On the null geodesic time doesn't make sense, so space also doesn't. What's inside a black hole? There is no inside of a black hole!
Would a non singularity or not completely collapesed black hole explode and form our universe? If not so, the singularity is just a problem of time, infinity is a very long time, unless time (and space) itself collapses, then, true singularities are formed.
If physics breaks down at a hypothetical singularity...then that singularity, by evidence of our observations, must hypothetically only represent a single value...and a single dimension...be one dimensional...only having a magnitude.
It is utterly idiotic to spoil a very interesting presentation by adding totally irrelevant distracting background "music", especially for viewers with hearing difficulties (like me).
The problem is that this is, and always will be, only theoretical or hypothetical, and will never be actually proven to be in accordance to reality. IOW, there is no experiment to show the truth of the theorem. Unless we can actually create another universe identical to this one... And, how can something be something and exist with no time? That's illogical. If something exists, it exist in space and time. We can not say that something exists in space but not in time.
@@PhilHalper1 Yes, I listened to the whole video, thank you. Though, I could ask You what the point of this whole thing is? An academic discussion? Mental m@sturbation? The photon doesn't expoerience time, yet if the photon exists, it exists in space and time. It can't be otherwise, or can it? If the photon can exist in space without time, what does that even mean?
@@PhilHalper1 That's the point if you base it on your assumption that it does or doesn't work. And You don't know that, because You have no way of knowing. You're only speculating, or IOW, you're making stuff up! Stuff, you can never actually prove to be true or false. And that is called unfalsifiable, which means it's the same as any other unfalsifiable belief. And that's my point. We don't need new theoretical physics - we need to know what actually takes place inside a black hole. And, if we can't know that, we can't know that. Therefore whatever new physics anybody makes up, it will never be falsifiable, thus it will always be a belief based on zero scientific evidence.
@@Dadas0560- Prove in an experimental sense? No, but you can show that if you accept certain axioms, some proofs simply will not work out mathematically because of errors on the author’s part. So, you can exclude those solutions from the possible set of solutions that might be able to be experimentally verified some day
i'm always keen to hear what roger penrose has to say, i've always been impressed by his ability to understand problems and find solutions - especially outside of his field, like the penrose tiles. keep 'em comin' skydive!
This means that the British Physicist Sir Roger Penrose will give back his Nobel Prize ? . By the way , infer physical phenomena from the very complex and apparently poor understood mathematical problem of non mathematical continuable properties of solutions of non linear systems of ordinary differential equations in Lorentzian (Or Riemann ) manifolds ( The geodesic equations for "body" motions or for classical fields like the classical electromagnetic field propagation classical optics -classical light with no photons and as a pure wave phenomena. !) as it is done in GR , is certainly a trick and very difficult problem in my humble opinion !. PS : In mathematics , if a solution of an ordinary differential equations blow up in some time , this does not means that the space has blown up or has a hole inside !.It is the function-the ordinary differential equation solution that has a singularity at a given point or boundary ! . People in GR apparently say that this ALWAYS HAPPENS (THE EXISTENCE OF A SPACE -TIME SINGULARITY INSTEAD OF GEODESIC SINGULARITIES ) if the equations are PHYSICAL geodesic equations on manifold space time .I think this is a PHYSICAL assumption , not a Mathematical Theorem .Correct me if I am wrong. PS : Stephan Hawkings has produced fascinating arguments (firstly based in the Feynman Path Integral scheme) that is not true if we are in the quantum world : Quantum Particles can escape a black hole Apparently There is NO black hole for quantum particles ! ( -see Hartle & Hawking - Phys Rev D 13 -2188 , (1976) .PS : . A physico-mathematical point to think : If one solves the Classical Einstein equations for the Sun (a spatial fixed Body of mass M ) one obtains the one century old Schwarchild solution with all the phenomena of singularities . But now consider the Sun in motion (with a full world line in the space time) or better , the existence of an additional Huge (Cosmological) electromagnetic field surround the Sun affecting the generated gravity by the Sun . Would the Einstein solution possesses the same geometrical properties of the "static " Sun with a world line purely in time , as the Schwarchild solution has ? . I think do not (just add a cosmological constant that every things is going to change-The singularity appears to disappear !)
What a great video. Congratulations to all involved in its making. I am persuaded that Penrose is correct, but puzzled by how these smart people are not disturbed by the existence of a singularity.
I rather like this presentation very much but have a couple of gripes, offered helpfully I trust: 1) Sabine is pronounces Zab-een-eh. You wouldn't like your name mispronounced. 2) The host makes a couple of ridiculous sounding misstatements, which I could see through, but which I feel would confuse the lay listener. E.g., "Co-ordinate time is meaningless" - very misleading. So the "t" co-ordinate in the most commonly presented form of the Schwartzschild metric is meaningless? These sorts of sloppy statements make me cringe. best of luck DKB
Indeed, but sometimes using correct pronunciation makes one appear pretentious. As regards your second point, you have a reasonable quibble here, but unpacking it would take too long and bore the pants off most viewers. Basically all coordinates are, a priori, meaningless. They can be given meaning by specifying an observer and using the metric. The Schwarzschild t coordinate does represent the time measured by a stationary observer far from a Schwarzchild black hole, however, this coordinate, and way of measuring time, is meaningless for an infalling observer who crosses the event horizon. The video is not really wrong, but takes reasonable short-cuts to make the presentation digestible.
Consider this: It seems to me that Penrose' own CCC hypothesis, is contingent on what he is arguing against here, with singularity. NULL, as with infinity, may only be eternally approached in the 'real' world. If 'scale' is taken as a fourth, infinite spatial dimension, with an associated time dilation, wouldn't the singularity issue go away?.. as space and time 'shrink' eternally toward an infinitesimal point, that is never 'reached'. *spelling Terrific content as always!
CCC does resolve the Big bang sinuglairty not the black hole one. No one in this film argues the singualrty is real, only that Kerrs solution doesn't work
Black holes with the mass of a star would not exist, nor would they be needed. These stellar-mass black objects would be black stars expanding in space. They would be much more dense than observable expanding stars. They would radiate expanding dark energy / light. The expanding dark photons were denser. Their internal movement / time slower and thus they would not interact with the observable matter. They would be pushed through telescopes and telescopes without transmitting information about the object from which they came. When this expanding dark energy is pushed into an observable expanding star orbiting an expanding black star, more energy would be pushed into these expanding dark energy densifications there. Their internal pressure would increase. Internal movement / time would speed up. They would expand faster and would eventually begin to collide with the expanding cores of the expanding atoms of the observed expanding star deep within the observed expanding star on their way to the center of this star. Expanding faster, this observable expanding matter could do nothing but push faster away from the center of the observable expanding star, and the direction would of course be this expanding black star. Because of the rotation on its axis, the direction would be slightly past this expanding black star because of the delay. And this is how this expanding black star would cause the expanding matter of this expanding observable star to push towards itself without any pulling forces and without space being curved somehow. Its ability to attract matter would be an illusion. Naturally, the observable expanding star would be pushed in a spiral path away from the expanding black star and this faster exploding/expanding matter would act as an explosive fuel that would push the observable expanding star away from the expanding black star in the same proportion as matter and light expand. Logically simple beautiful 🙂 🤔 In relation to the tidal phenomenon, I liked what I wrote that there is a constant flow between the center of the Moon and the Earth, where these expanding condensations of dark energy circulated by the nuclei of the expanding atoms are constantly pushed into the opposite sphere and are activated during the push through each other. And corresponding already activated thickenings are pushed against, so the probability of encountering the next ones increases, etc., etc. Now these concentrations of dark energy interact more strongly with matter, accelerating its expansion, so the sea also expands more strongly. Hence the tidal phenomenon on both sides of the expanding Earth without a pulling force and without curved space. 😀
These type of videos help the public appreciate science and in improves their reputation with the public. It's good to know that somebody can write a paper and everyone can come together and discuss the pros and cons of a theory and give open critiques
In doubles slit experiment, with single electron fired at a time, doesn't the interference pattern means that time means nothing for electrons and below-quantum level? Otherwise, how the interference pattern can be explained? Then if time is zero, hence by analogy distance is zero as well to solve the entanglement problem. Conclusion, both problems are solved and no more work for the physicists. In particular those who beleive the creation or the big bang started at infinitly small point. As it turned out time and dimensions meant nothing at that point and a little bit afterwards. Can somebody explain? As an offshoot a time-sensor property like minimum mass or other property, can be decided depending on this experiment. In other words what is the minimum property of a sub -particle to start sensing time? These sub-particles are the true God's particles where time means nothing. TISP time independent sub-particles. These remarks must point to a new classification of matter where the time is the dividing line. This throws question marks about the exact time of the big bang. Or it make it only from our point of view! So time meant nothing at the "bigining". Hence no arrow of time and entropy at the beginning of creation? So is time independent all the way so far? Or it appeared as a consequence of some particles with certain properties. Hence disappear when they seize to exist, End Of Time. So maybe we still need physicists.
You are right in that Zeno's paradox involves the problem of completing an infinite number of tasks in order for Achilles to pass a tortoise. Zeno's mistake is to use a metric that measures the number of tasks without taking into account the fact that each task takes a fraction of the time to complete compared to the previous task. The shrinking ruler is simply a variant of this. That said, the time coordinate = time measured by a distant observer shrinks in exactly this way when measuring the trajectory of an observer crossing the horizon. Schwarzschild time is like Zeno's enumeration of tasks ... it gives a pathologically bad description of horizon-scale physics
It is unclear to me why you would use a video blogger like Sabine and an educational channel like PBS as the response instead of Kerr himself. You let Penrose make his case and then uses bloggers and educational channels as a refutation? This is poorly done. At the very least you should have approached Kerr himself for a response. Did you do that? Even if he didn't reply you could say you tried. But it is not clear that you did. As a consequence for the general public you helped clear up nothing, and, from what I can tell, take pot shots at other educational channels. As a scientist myself, I am quite unimpressed. Quality science presentation on youtube is rare enough, but having a channel act like physics is like politics with gotcha's is not how it should be done. Do better, that is assuming your intent is really to educate the public and help them understand science.
also, she has published a fair few papers in the literature, I'm not suggesting she isn't a serious scientist; she is. But in this case, she has got it horribly wrong. But hey even Einstein made mistakes.
@@grandeau3802maybe hype isn't the right word, "clickbaity sensationalism maybe, where small advances, if any, are presented as major breakthroughs. Quantum computing comes to mind. I think Sabine is good at bringing it down a notch😉
If Everything has angular momentum,then so would the singularity But singularity is a point and point has no axis to rotate So it becomes a disk Aum Namah Sudarshan Guruve
This assumes that matter remains matter at a singularity. More likely, matter transforms to energy, or some massless boson like photons, which have no problem occupying the same "space".
@@varunsharma3532 Both linear and angular momentum are properties of particles created after the "big bang", and are manifestations of kinetic energy.. The primordial singularity was likely just pure potential energy. In truth, we just don't know.
The so called "black hole" is contingent upon matter being attracted to huge densities and pressures. Why then does this matter not undergo fission and turn to pure radiating enetgy{photons} long before this so called "singularity" state? It would seem logical that the density and subsequent pressure would cause ALL of the matter it radiate away after a particular extreme density is met.(a,k,a a nuclear explosition}. No explanation has been given as to why this does not happen therefore the idea of a "black hole singularity" is a mathematically consistnt illusion that cannot exist in any place but within a theorum on paper written by a mathematician. Putting it another way "black holes" do exist in the Penrose paper but nowhere else. Roger created an entirely consistent illusion in the same way Esher did with his staircases but these consistencies exist and are true only on paper and not in reality. So he recieved a Nobel Prize for an elaborate dream fantasy that makes sense.
The blacksphere I believe is correct, we see jets from poles this would imply a sphere is indeed present. The boundary I believe will increase and decrease with availability of material. The more material available the boundary grows to massive proportions and will decrease as this material is used as fuel. Why. The strength of the blacksphere is proportionate to the strength of the horizon. As the build up of charged material builds up on the boundary of the horizon the spheres strength must increase its a direct result and the appearance is that of a super massive boundary. Comparisons could be found measurement taken as proof. The sphere sits in an infinite ♾️ environment, that environments law is VEM =0Msquared. All mass is equivalent and gravity is not present at or near the the blacksphere or boundary. 2nd law is appropriate at the boundary as friction occurs due to opposing forces of the same nature one positive the other negative. Which in turn creates what we call galacty. EMFSYSTEMS. It's the starting position that is important, everything else is emerged from this position. Penrose is a favorite. I believe the whole thing needs to looked at again. Mistakes have probably happened from the beginning. Or misinterpreted due to the period in which these giants lived. Our knowledge has increased exponentially and should be applied. It's all awsome I do love the fights really and want to do just that. Maybe soon hopefully, blacksphere never grow or radiate away. There always there to consume charged particles as they are present. Peace ✌️ 😎.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Some one could ask NASA about the way they do slingshot's, with their space craft. Newtons laws didn't work for that. When Elon's car didn't make it's shot, I said Ah to myself, so NASA made him learn the hard way eh?
Just out of curiosity, is the narrator your wife? I've always just assumed that she was, but I just realized I don't actually know. No particular reason I'm asking beyond simply curiosity, so feel free to "No comment" me if you'd prefer not saying. Either way, another really interesting video. Keep up the good work. :)
Again, Sabine makes statements about things she doesn't really understand. It seems to me she builds her reputation on cheap shots, like "it's faith, not science", "sixty years people believed in singularities without actual proof" etc. Also for some reason her video titled something like "there is no beauty in physics" was very popular, and many commented how she is great scientist cause she only cares for truth. I just don't get how people can think there is something deep in her videos.
that Sabine person has been refuted more than a few times now. I'm not sure if her criticisms should be considered in the same way as others. good video E: seeing their obvious "blunders" makes me think their intentions are not as pure and honest as some might think. humans are humans after all and agendas are what drives most. such a shame. massive W for Penrose.
Also, the statement in the intro is false. Penrose never discovered that black holes are real. Penrose is a theoretical physicist/mathematician, so he discovered nothing in reality. He only discovered or invented some new maths which pointed to some hypothesis, which in turn needed to be shown to most likely represent reality. Evidence points to black holes being factual, yet we really don't know much about them, and certainly we don't know and can not know what's beyond their horizon.
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow. That was a real beat down. I love this. Well done everyone. 👏👏
thanks so much
Penrose has an extremely profound mind and everything he says must be deeply analyzed and understood before criticizing it, before he's usually correct.
So you're on board with quantum mechanical events in microtubules in brain neurons causing consciousness to emerge?
@@lreadlResurrected well consciousness has an evident quantum quality, being a superposition of possibilities, don't you feel it like that? Besides, there's evidence of hyper luminiscensce, which is a quantum phenomena, produced by micro tubules. There's a fresh pbs episode about it, look it up, fascinating stuff
@@ekekonoise I'm a layman, but as I understand it we're talking about activities within a molecule and moreover, a molecule that is not exclusive to the brain's environment. That leaves me skeptical, but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know.
@@lreadlResurrectedeken statement applies. Penrose is human but he is inhuman in the field where he is rarely wrong.
@@lreadlResurrectedyou are mixing up Penrose' beliefs with those of Stuart Hameroff. Stick to what Penrose actually says about that topic and it is harder to refute. I don't know why everyone comes back to Tegmark's tired dismissal years ago. That was just lazy.
Very brave to show massive physics channels getting it wrong. May you not be affected by any backlash from the fans. I really appreciate your willingness to get into the weeds and explain what the disagreement is.
@@Cat_Woods thanks. So far no backlash. I'm hoping they correct themselves. To be fair I think only Sabine said Kerr was right. The others just explained Kerrs argument as best they could without spotting Kerrs error
@@PhilHalper1you're the best on this stuff! And I really look for things on this topic!
@@moftan thanks
@@PhilHalper1 Sabine often opines on subjects that she doesn't understand. Some of her presentations on engineering topics are barely undergraduate standard. That said, I greatly admire her, particularly her keen observations on how research in general, not just physics, has become a self-sustaining industry disconnected from solving important problems.
I followed Sir Roger Penrose and I finally just rested on only numbers. During my journey. Yes! He is so absolutely timeless
From a 72. Year old searcher of how everything is connected thank you the public needs sources like this.
youre welcome
Sir Roger Penrose is amazing in so many regards but what defy imagination is his simple way of speaking about complicated subjects and make them clear. I hope to be as alert as he is when I'll get his age.
Thanks for this video, great and interesting subject 🤗 as Always 🤩
your welcome
The term "affine" is used in many areas, including computer science, mathematics, and machine learning. It has interesting definitions in each field.
It's affine term. 😁
And cheating
@@MikeWiest🤣
I need a 10-min video to explain its meaning and etymology.
@@jamesraymond1158 From the Latin “fine” meaning “fine” and “af” meaning “as fvck.” 😊
Let me be the first to say any self-respecting cosmology student should actually watch this from start to finish. This channel rocks!!
Thanks for your kind words. much appreciated
Self-respecting cosmology students read and criticize Penrose's published works. This is for people who want to be entertained for the next 20 minutes.
@@fullyawakened my error, I forgot to exclude condescending cosmology students - the worst kind, eh?
@@PhilHalper1 WLC's statements about space-time curvature and singularities are nearly identical to those or Penrose. However when Craig talks about them you assume that he is wrong and interview a group of people to refute him. Oh dear.
It does.
I always want more from this channel!
thanks so much, we will try
I would like to see a _perspicuous_ definition of "geodesic"; and also of "path" and "follow a path".
I'm currently reviewing 2 books I've had since their release, Shadows of the Mind & The Emperor's New Mind by Professor, Sir Roger Penrose, for a thread I'll write soon as I've spent most of my life studying mathematical physics as an amateur (studied O level in both). I'm a big fan of Roger Penrose because I like his original thinking & visual spatial methods of communication so have a timeless quality. Regards Claire
Awesome episode again. This channel should be more popular than Sabine or PBS. And hey! There's footage of skydiving in it, finally!
Thanks so much. Check out out fine-tuning video; there is some skydiving footage there too
It is, at least to me it is (I don't think there's a single video in this channel I haven't avidly watched and then liked). However when you do long format docus and publish only a few per year, you can't really compete or even compare with weekly shorter (and sometimes shallower) pop-sci format.
Haven't finished watching the video, but I will say that I appreciate that a video like this, with a critical look at Kerr's paper, has come out. At first, I was hyped up when I first saw Kerr's paper (admittedly part of the reason is that I am desperate for a breakthrough in theoretical physics 😬), but reading it I was quite unimpressed, and left confused at what Kerr wrote that either hadn't already been addressed long ago (when the definition of a "singularity" in GR was established in the 60s, and is well explained in the Hawking & Ellis book from 1973), or that simply didn't address what Penrose's theorem actually says. But anyway, I hoped there was more to Kerr's paper than I got the impression of, considering that we were talking about, well, Roy Kerr, after all. For that reason, I was happy when I saw that the paper was finally mentioned by popular science media. But after having thought about it more and reading from the perspective from other theoretical physicists, confirming part of my suspicion and also clearing up exactly what the null geodesics that Kerr considered corresponded to in the Kerr spacetime, I came to the conclusion, that, indeed, the paper was hollow and based on a misunderstanding. So now I've come around to say I'm glad to finally see popular science media that present a critical look at his paper!
Edit: Great job interviewing relevant physicists on the area, especially Penrose himself!
Great contribution this video is.
Also, I might add that it is trivial to prove that an affine parameter is always a linear function of proper time (not coordinate time, but proper time). So if one is bounded so is the other.
One can imagine their relationship as this: We can use a rotated line (affine parameter: applicable to light too) to index points on the original line (proper time: which for light is unusable); The reason we use the rotated line is that the original line had a bad/difficult/unusable direction (the so-called light-like direction);
Sorry Prof. Kerr
thanks for your comment, very insightful
Hey Phil, congrats on this episode. I've just got a few comments. Did you approach Roy Kerr to see if he would contribute to the discussion? Secondly, was/is there any bad blood between Kerr and Penrose? It seems slightly strange that Kerr came up with this supposed bombshell shortly after Penrose's Noble prize. Was Kerr annoyed that he didn't get a slice of it? Does anyone know?
Sir Roger Penrose arguably the most accomplished person on the planet! Thank you Sir Roger for your brilliant mind!
I have been waiting for this subject to get covered by someone since the Kerr paper came out. THANK YOU
your welcome
Me too!
Thanks to great physicists, explaining with examples,I could finally grasp the meaning of affine parameter of null geodesic that has been in news recently!
your welcome
In this world there are only three certainties: Einstein, Penronse and death.
Einstein didn't believe in singularities, not so certain hey?
@@digbysirchickentf2315 - I know what I mean: not so much his beliefs or disbeliefs but his well established theories.
And that Mathematics is incomplete
@@peterrauth118 - Maybe. I'm not mathematician enough: to me it's just a form of logic and thus it may be necessarily incomplete by its own nature (our brainchild after all).
@@LuisAldamiz Ah ha! The great debate, which has been raging for quite some time: Does mathematics exist outside of human thought, or did we create it? Personally I think the former, partly because it seems to me that Number Theory would exist whether there were self-aware beings or not.
Nothing & Everything:
Several hypothesis and theories propose that at some point in time, all matter and mass in the universe will be swallowed by black holes, then all of the information about the matter is evaporated as hawking radiation and becomes photons. Roger Penrose has a very strong hypothesis called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology that I highly recommend studying.
In this scenario, spacetime ceases to exist because photons do not experience time or space. In the absence of spacetime, all photons become a single, unified photon capable of exceeding the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement. This leads to an infinite overlap of all points in the universe, creating a paradox where the universe simultaneously ends and begins. The exact moment everything becomes a photon is the exact moment everything becomes matter again, demonstrating a paradox where GR and QM overlap, and the universe exists in a state of both physical and non-physical infinity.
This is an extreme scenario where all matter in the universe converts to photons, resulting in a universe composed entirely of massless, virtual particles. Given that photons travel at the speed of light and do not experience time or space. This conversion of matter into energy leads to the cessation of spacetime. Due to quantum tunneling, entanglement, and the absence of spacetime constraints, all photons unify into a single photon capable of exceeding the speed of light, leading to the simultaneous end and rebirth of spacetime. This is where E=mc², and m=E/c² come into play. c² is the square of the speed of light, which only happens when there is no vacuum.
1. What we know about Photons
- Photons are massless particles that always travel at the speed of light. According to special relativity, photons do not experience time or space; there is no interval between their point of emission and absorption in their frame of reference. If the universe becomes a unified photon, spacetime, as traditionally understood, ceases to exist.
- The cessation of spacetime means that the conventional dimensions of time and space lose their meaning because there is no mass to curve spacetime, and photons themselves do not require spacetime to exist in the conventional sense.
2. The Singularity Illusion
- In a photon-only universe, without the usual constraints of spacetime, all photons can be considered as part of a single, unified quantum state. This unified state implies that all photons are entangled with each other, sharing the same quantum properties and existing as a singular entity, resulting in a super position.
- Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous correlations between particles regardless of distance. In the absence of spacetime, the distance and time separation between entangled photons becomes meaningless, allowing them to behave as a single, unified photon.
3. c²
- With spacetime ceasing to exist, the unified photon state is not constrained by the speed of light limit. In a spacetime-less state, photons can "tunnel" across the entirety of what would be considered the universe without restriction. This process is known as quantum tunneling.
- This unified photon state also allows quantum entanglement to exist simultaneously across all points, effectively exceeding the speed of light. The photon’s wave function would encompass the entire universe instantaneously, creating a state where all spatial and temporal coordinates overlap, and the moment the wave function collapses is the moment the physical universe is created.
4. Endless cycle of Birth, Death, & Rebirth
- In this state where all photons are unified and spacetime has ceased, photons can interact through quantum fluctuations and collisions, leading to pair production. This process would spontaneously generate particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electrons and positrons), reintroducing mass into the universe.
- The moment mass is reintroduced, spacetime is reinstated. The paradox arises because the exact moment spacetime ceases is also the moment it begins again. The absence of spacetime allows the unified photon to exceed conventional limits, while its interactions simultaneously recreate matter, restoring spacetime. Time is the measurement of matter as it moves in space.
In a universe where all matter converts into photons, the cessation of spacetime allows for the formation of a single, unified photon state. This state enables photons to exceed the speed of light through quantum tunneling and entanglement, resulting in an infinite overlap of all points and moments in the universe. The universe reaches a paradoxical state where its end and rebirth occur simultaneously. The instant spacetime ceases due to the lack of mass, the unified photons vibratory rate exceeds the speed of light leading to the immediate re-emergence of matter and spacetime.
At the exact moment when everything becomes photons and spacetime ceases, photons unify and exceed the speed of light, creating a state of infinite simultaneity where the end of the universe overlaps with its beginning. The universe’s fabric collapses into a singular quantum state, where the cessation of spacetime is indistinguishable from its rebirth through pair production. This unified state of everything is consciousness.
- Physics falls apart
This hypothesis challenges the traditional limits of physics, suggesting that without spacetime, the universe can transcend its normal physical laws. The super position state of the unified photon, enabled by quantum entanglement and tunneling, allows for behavior beyond conventional speed limits and dimensional constraints.
- The Paradox
The unified photon state’s ability to exceed the speed of light in the absence of spacetime leads to a condition where all events and locations are superimposed. The instantaneous reintroduction of matter via pair production ensures that the universe does not remain in this state. Instead, it transitions back to a state with spacetime, creating a loop where the cessation and existence of spacetime are one and the same.
- Paradox
The cessation of spacetime, combined with the unified photon state’s super position behavior and quantum properties, creates a paradoxical infinity where the universe’s physical and non-physical states coexist. The concept of time does not pass between these two states, creating a moment that is both an end and a beginning, a state of infinite simultaneity and unified existence.
I remain puzzled. The problem for me is the statement that light experiences no Affine Time. The obvious example is the red shift caused by the expansion of space through which it moves. Though I would also wonder about the change that occurs during its creation and as it interacts with some mass.
Time depends on the observer. So light can red-shift or be created as seen by a normal observer but if one could put a clock on the photon itself, there would be no passage of time ...
This is an excellent and instructive video. But it would be much easier to follow if the transcript was edited. This is straightforward to do, if a little time consuming. Many Thanks! 👍👍👍
Thanks, glad you liked it. I'm a bit swamped for time regarding the transcript. but if I get the chance, Ill try.
Does anyone know of a technical paper that presents the refutations in this video? I have searched on the archive and I can't find one. This the only place I've seen this, and I've searched everywhere for a technical discussion.
there is unlikley to ever be one becuase Kerrs paper never got published n a journal .
Good stuff indeed! It is amazing that we can hear these discussions from the authors themselves. Thanks for birnging them to us!
thanks very much for your comment , happy to oblige.
Here’s what I think: ThirdEyeTyrone (look him up if you don’t know him) proposes that singularities are an element of our perception. He made the example that in a viewing field, singularities exist at infinitely far away points in that view field… we know this to be trivially true…and that this doesn’t necessarily mean there exists some physical singularity it’s a description of the limit of our perception of information.
In this sense, a black hole singularity might actually be real, it’s just us observers observing it CANT perceive it and so for all intents and purposes it appears like a singularity.
Aside from being a correspondence between observation and perception (in line with complimentarity) it also is a statement that black holes are information constructs, and that this is fundamental.
I listen to TET, his manner of speaking reminds me of Terrence McKenna, but his content is firmly in the realm of Metaphysics. Don't get me wrong, it has it's place, right next to physics and philosophy in human thought, and is necessary to probe the boundaries of what is known and unknown. In this instance, precise mathematical models are needed to make any meaningful predictions.
Consider this: It seems to me that Penrose' own CCC hypothesis, is contingent on what he is arguing against here, with singularity. NULL, as with infinity, may only be eternally approached in the 'real' world. If 'scale' is taken as a fourth, infinite spatial dimension, with an associated time dilation, wouldn't the singularity issue go away?.. as space and time 'shrink' eternally toward an infinitesimal point, that is never 'reached'.
@@David.C.Velasquez in response to you consideration: yes I think changing the dimension is going to yield different answers. Similar procedures are followed in projective geometry, and other places, like saying building an oracle to a Turing machine is a hyper computer. Those constructs though are not “real” in that we can’t construct them and you can consider that as a limitation of our observation and therefor limit of our perception as 3d observers.
We can also consider that black holes might be infinite dimensional in a Hilbert space and there might not be any representation that doesn’t contain a singularity.
But ya, basically when we consider that we get different answers by changing dimension, we are constructing different kinds of observers that could perceive no singularity, but we can’t physically construct that observer, in the same way that we can’t build a hyper computer.
@@NightmareCourtPictures Great points, but as '3d observers' our limitation is only to translation in 3 spatial dimensions. Our perception has been enhanced, with telescopes and microscopes, to perceive scale as such, we just can't travel along it dimensionally without falling into a gravity well.
I would love if you did a video on the EP equals epr paper by maldacena and the difference in looking at an object from the outside or from observing it from within. Also how the complexity inside of a black hole can increase at a rapid pace. Which is one of the reasons they say you cannot Traverse a wormhole. Personally I always thought when an electron and positron come into being there is some sort of Wormhole between them which apparently is something they're studying.
Thanks for the suggestion
What has Sabine ever contributed to science, apart from her YT channel? She is not even in the same scientific league as Penrose yet when you hear her talking, she seems to think she is.. Seems in this case, she didn't understand some textbook basics and just jumped onto the issue to stay relevant.
Sabine has made some good contributions to science, but nowhere near the level of Penrose. However, her career (and presumably income) now appears to be running a RUclips channel. This means she tries to drive a lot of traffic and use fake controversies to that end. Her shameless inclusion of Hawking in this particular story is simply to obtain clicks: Hawking has only tangential relevance to the particular Penrose theorem .... but Sabine wants more traffic and links her narrative to Hawking. Yet another tangent that confuses her story and her audience
She is a science entertainer, not a practicing or serious scientist.
She's get's kick out of provoking big shots. She successfully managed to grow her channel by being different, though she has ruined it by fondness for engagement bait and cringiness.
I unsubscribed from her channel recently, she now basically dump post garbage now.
@@coorz64right, she's just a face infront of a camera, she doesn't write her own script.
She's just a science major picked up by a film team to be the face of their entertainment science channel, and to give it credability
How in the world can we give Nobel prices for something that takes us nowhere.
hahaha, physics is all done underground and in extreme silence these days. And they claim to investigate the big bang? If you ask me, this is nonesense.
So would it be correct to say that Entangled particles that were created at the same Proper Time will then forever exist on the same Null geodesic?
great but music annoying
Well, we now know that much of our theory of the Big bang is wrong. Penrose is also wrong. Physicists that I respect the most. Will tell you that when your formulas go to a singularity, it suggests that you're missing part of The puzzle
With due respect to all participants _
1.Trajectory depends on time. Correct
2.What is proper time as mentioned by Sir.Penrose can be supported by -
3. This proper time is independent of observer. It depends on universe. For our universe flow of time is constant for all observers in 4D but in its 3D space which is a holographic view of 4D the curve changes. Actually in 4D there is no change of time and for our universe it is size of Planck hole. It is constant for all observers. The 3D hologram is space only. Not space time. It is explained by space time equivelance law. This can be verified experimentally.with a formula interpreted by Hubble's expansion.But the paper was rejected. That can be used in this time line problem of black holes.
4. Mass when goes deep in to singularity,it looses mass and finally become Photon with zero mass.(As mentioned by Penrose).But Photon is also a tiny Black hole. What about singularity in it?
5. The solution lies in quantum mechanics that interpret the significance of signal and its importance in transfermations. That is the boundary that links quantum mechanics and General Relativity through special relativity.
Always this wave of ridiculously reverent and exuberant comments from random accounts. It’s like blog comment spam or fake Amazon reviews. And the creator always likes them and never constructive dissenting views. RUclips science.
I'd love to read your dissenting view on this topic.
@@capnmnemo Ok: there are no singularities in nature.
This is one-sided. What does Kerr have to say and what do other physicists that aren't so enamored with black holes or relativity say? After all, relativity has a lot of ridiculous notions and it's just an interpretation of observations with a controversial history of inconsistencies up to this day.
@@markszlazak Kerr's paper and Sabines video are also one sided. Surely their critics gave a right of reply?
@@PhilHalper1 Usually when critics respond to an original the there is at least one reply and if needed a longer exchange can happen. This gives us a better idea how good the arguments really are. So instead of making excuses, bring them on!
@@markszlazak have you complained to Sabine or PBS spacetime or others that they didn't ask Penrose and others for their reply?
As is normal in science, Kerr presented his ideas in a paper for evaluation by his peers. The paper has been found to contain a fundamental error and so will not get traction, and probably won't be published in a good journal. That is good science and good scientific method. As to your other point: I am not sure what you mean. An example would help. Relativity contains much that is counterintuitive but it is not inconsistent.
@@PhilHalper1 Still dodging any responsibility? Maybe next time try to present both sides but it is your show not mine.
NGL I tried to listen to this while doing something else and I stopped because it needs full attention.
yes it does , but it will reward you if you give it.
GR's mistake is the assumption that time is relative to an object.
Even if actual singularities are permitted in GR as solutions to realistic matter distributions, it does not mean you have to "quantize gravity". A singularity is not really an incompleteness, it only means the time evolution becomes non-deterministic. But just think about that for one millisecond! You are telling me quantum mechanics (as presently widely understood) is nondeterministic. But isn't that exactly what you just said you did not enjoy about GR singularities? You cannot talk out both sides of your mouth like that and have my respect! As Lenny Susskind often says these days, Gravity/GR _is already a quantum theory!_
The missing ingredient here is non-trivial spacetime topology. But that's a quantum theory obtained from GR --- akin to a particle postulate (it inserts a Planck constant into GR), which is not normally presumed in most GR textbooks treatments, to their detriment, except spacetime topology is extremely gnarly (the realm of 4-manifolds) so a textbook author can be forgiven.
A singularity simply means that the theory is incapable of resolving the physics that is happening at the singularity ...
@@Achrononmaster THIS!
Now, this.. is interesting. Hope this format, and video, blows up. It would spark a really important conversation. Link this to all of them! U all are going to farm views while providing good info and content. After this I can confidently say that I finally see Time as an axis, exactly as Space... even before this I thaught to have a really good grasp on it but now it's for sure better, thanks!
you are welcome thanks for your comment.
The popularizers although are doing a good job most of the time, really want to sensationalize the wrong issues sometimes.
yep
I thought the implication was not that the finite piece of a geodesic is infinite but an open interval. In my defense, a finite open interval is a lot like an infinite one, but it is still something I misunderstood in the summary of the article.
You raise many issues ... a finite open interval can be mapped to an infinite one, and that is, in a sense par of Kerr's error. The finite open interval is defined by the affine parameter, while the time coordinate maps this to an infinite extent. The time coordinate is unphysical while the affine parameter, and the geodesic, can be extended beyond the singular limit of the time coordinate. This is a signal that using the time coordinate is bad.
Singularities are not logic as if you accept those you have to be consequent, meaning SpaceTime is the bottom of Reality! Wich is very unlikely since quantum mechanics already show that with its precense.
You already see that at the edge of a black hole, Relativity tells time stops, quantum mechanics tells no, entropy, temp and energy is not zero, so with this all Time should be astronomic slow but not zero. The edge of a black hole might be a hybrid as system or probably even more complex! GR does not tell the whole story!
that what we said at the beginning of the film
@@PhilHalper1 Yes true. I hope we find the missing puzzle pieces, that might be more the Quantum gravity. It seems we clearly have a blanc at our perception of the foundation of reality.
hi this is really interesting, thanks. did you interview Penrose yourself or do you have the source of the original interview? I am after an official "feedback", if it exists, from Roger Penrose about Kerr's paper, which, even if only a pre-print, is a written statement that got quite famous.
i did it myself, there is no offiucakl feedback as Kerrs paper has never been published and almost certainly won't be.
@@PhilHalper1 thanks, just for the sake of my understanding, you mean that you have interviewed Roger Penrose, Jose Senovilla,Abhai Ashtekar, Jerome Quintin, Ghazal Gheshnizjani and Nicholas Warner ? Thanks!
@@manuelcomparetti2143 yes
@@PhilHalper1 I didn't know that it hadn't been published. As to it almost certainly won't be, don't be too sure. Plenty of wrong papers get rejected (I've reviewed some of them, as have my colleagues), but are published anyway, sometimes in respectable journals.
@@bobtimster62 yeah but in this case weve given very good reasons wh it wont be published, it is wrong,.
I may not be the best at understanding physics, so I can't comment much on that. But for one I hope to have the same level of intelligence as Penrose as I grow older... and the skydiving shots at 3:28 make my stomach feel weird, that's crazyyy
lol, its crazy fun
Sir Roger is a giant. To argue against him is pointless. They guy has made his mark on so many different subjects.
Even Einstein got stuff wrong, so it could be true that Penrose is mistaken, too. but in this case, he is not.
That is not how science is done .. you just don't blindly follow anyone.. it's good to have different opinions and argue which one is correct
This is always the same fallacy of blindly following authorities of a discipline
How can Kerr talk about a geodesic when the space-time gravity well has become fully perpendicular (from the singularity)? How can Kerr talk about continuing time when time has terminated in a Planck time string (singularity)?
Another excellent vid from this channel!
thanks
Phil what score you use in your videos?
What puzzles me about this video (apart from all the science.. I soon gave up) is who the lady presenter is - because she doesn't look like a "Phil Halper".
shes my wife
@@PhilHalper1 Aaah. Congratulations! :)
Doesn't the need for Affine Time prove that Time is independent of Mass?
Phil, unlike others, is quite rigorous in his approach. Most of the pop sci channels eg sabine, pbs etc are desperate for new content and clicks. therefore they pick up anything they find then blow it out of proportion, without in-depth understanding of various topics. I always advise my students to not take popsci channels seriously.
So not unlike Phil?
thanks very much
I think you have characterized the situation very well.
I'm not 100%sure that it's fair to say, that Kerr is wrong in a situation , where physics exists only on the level of math. Inside a BH there are only mathematical solutions, one can glue any kind of spacetime there and still get a mathematically correct description that could be in disagreement with the statement that null geodesics end (e.g. glueing a deSitter spacetime there). The problem is , that it is unmeasurable with our current knowledge, thus such a heated discussion is not necessarily meaningful.
Still , great video, with clear arguments on the "mainstream cosmology" of black holes.
thanks very much
I am so grateful for the hard work put in to make this. As ever it demonstrates that we should not rely on the authority of any one scientist (the communicators mentioned have all done very good work in the past) but it is necessary to do the herd work in addressing the substance of any argument. I have no expertise to adjudicate this particular issue but I am coming away better informed about the substance.
thanks very much for you comment
Phil did all the hard work and strives to make a clear and accurate representation of the science (and scientists). It is a pleasure to have been part of this.
Love these videos! I am uneducated in these topics, but love listening/learning about them. I find your channel to be a great resource for learning about new things. I knew (generally, no details) what a geodesic was, but never heard of an affine parameter. Thanks Phil!
you are welcome
A singularity from the mathematical model only shows that the model cannot be applied there.
agreed that is the point we make at the beginning of the movie, but getting round the singualrity is no easy task and cant be done by Kerrs method.
Thank you! I was a little lost amid this battle between giants. I now understand! I love you.
Thanks very much for your comment
Is it possible that physicists, and especially physicists with extra-large mathematical skills, can at some point switch to doing pure mathematics, instead of physics, - without knowing it?
No. There is a boundary between the matter and anti-matter “sheets” of spacetime. Hence, the singularities terminate as stereo enantiomers. 😊 0:02
Can you explain a bit more?
@@SekaiOfficialRUclips : I wish I had the math to prove the views.
i’d love to be interviewed for this channel
Awesome channel and video!
thanks so much
The singularity exists, it just doesn't exist in the "physical" universe.
Honestly, I have always had that feeling that both Sabine and that PBS guy, they both talk in such a arrogant way, portraying themselves as know-it-all, that they simply cannot be true and real experts. They make mistakes that even undergrad GR students don't. Thanks for confirming and exposing them!
your welcome
They're quite good and I often like the work they do very much. Sometimes, however, I have to disdain or even actively dislike what they say, especially when Sabine goes all "fusion is real" and "hydrogen energy is unreal", which I know well is the other way around.
I think the PBS guy is fine in his area of expertise, but the show frequently requires him to speak outside of it. Kind of like Michio Kaku moonlighting on all those news programs but not nearly as bad.
Maybe its more a matter that these sort of academic disagreements are typical at the frontiers of science, particularly here when the physical embodiment would seem to be an impossibility, and also beyond the veil of the (also theoretical) event horizon where observation would be impossible to report back.
In the Past this would play out beyond the event horizon (or firewall) of high skill set academia only visible to those with the trained intellect specific to the topic. Now that we have a window granted by populising You Tube guides. but its a case of pick you favorite guide, rather than having any better insights into the applicability of Affine time, in this particular case anyway.
People make mistakes. Even simple and dumb mistakes. That's fine. It would be perfect if they addressed their mistakes.
Time is intimately related to space. When you can't talk about time, you can't talk about space. On the null geodesic time doesn't make sense, so space also doesn't. What's inside a black hole? There is no inside of a black hole!
Would a non singularity or not completely collapesed black hole explode and form our universe? If not so, the singularity is just a problem of time, infinity is a very long time, unless time (and space) itself collapses, then, true singularities are formed.
If physics breaks down at a hypothetical singularity...then that singularity, by evidence of our observations, must hypothetically only represent a single value...and a single dimension...be one dimensional...only having a magnitude.
I'm afraid I don't understand this comment. Can you elaborate?
It is utterly idiotic to spoil a very interesting presentation by adding totally irrelevant distracting background "music", especially for viewers with hearing difficulties (like me).
The problem is that this is, and always will be, only theoretical or hypothetical, and will never be actually proven to be in accordance to reality. IOW, there is no experiment to show the truth of the theorem. Unless we can actually create another universe identical to this one...
And, how can something be something and exist with no time?
That's illogical.
If something exists, it exist in space and time.
We can not say that something exists in space but not in time.
Did you watch the film? We didn't claim singularities exist, that's not the point .
@@PhilHalper1 Yes, I listened to the whole video, thank you. Though, I could ask You what the point of this whole thing is? An academic discussion? Mental m@sturbation?
The photon doesn't expoerience time, yet if the photon exists, it exists in space and time. It can't be otherwise, or can it?
If the photon can exist in space without time, what does that even mean?
@@Dadas0560 here's the point, Kerrs way fo resolveing the singularity doesn't work , so we need some new physics. Thats a big deal.
@@PhilHalper1 That's the point if you base it on your assumption that it does or doesn't work. And You don't know that, because You have no way of knowing. You're only speculating, or IOW, you're making stuff up! Stuff, you can never actually prove to be true or false. And that is called unfalsifiable, which means it's the same as any other unfalsifiable belief. And that's my point.
We don't need new theoretical physics - we need to know what actually takes place inside a black hole. And, if we can't know that, we can't know that. Therefore whatever new physics anybody makes up, it will never be falsifiable, thus it will always be a belief based on zero scientific evidence.
@@Dadas0560- Prove in an experimental sense? No, but you can show that if you accept certain axioms, some proofs simply will not work out mathematically because of errors on the author’s part. So, you can exclude those solutions from the possible set of solutions that might be able to be experimentally verified some day
By the sounds of things, it's a bad idea to use a bad coordinate.
yep
He has accepted quantum gravity at the end 🎉 thanks.
A shame this video isn't getting more views than the original erroneous pop science RUclips videos. Fantastic job Phil, thanks for doing this!
thansk for your kind words , much appreciated.
“erroneous” 😂😂😂
i'm always keen to hear what roger penrose has to say, i've always been impressed by his ability to understand problems and find solutions - especially outside of his field, like the penrose tiles. keep 'em comin' skydive!
thanks, will do
This means that the British Physicist Sir Roger Penrose will give back his Nobel Prize ? . By the way , infer physical phenomena from the very complex and apparently poor understood mathematical problem of non mathematical continuable properties of solutions of non linear systems of ordinary differential equations in Lorentzian (Or Riemann ) manifolds ( The geodesic equations for "body" motions or for classical fields like the classical electromagnetic field propagation classical optics -classical light with no photons and as a pure wave phenomena. !) as it is done in GR , is certainly a trick and very difficult problem in my humble opinion !. PS : In mathematics , if a solution of an ordinary differential equations blow up in some time , this does not means that the space has blown up or has a hole inside !.It is the function-the ordinary differential equation solution that has a singularity at a given point or boundary ! . People in GR apparently say that this ALWAYS HAPPENS (THE EXISTENCE OF A SPACE -TIME SINGULARITY INSTEAD OF GEODESIC SINGULARITIES ) if the equations are PHYSICAL geodesic equations on manifold space time .I think this is a PHYSICAL assumption , not a Mathematical Theorem .Correct me if I am wrong. PS : Stephan Hawkings has produced fascinating arguments (firstly based in the Feynman Path Integral scheme) that is not true if we are in the quantum world : Quantum Particles can escape a black hole Apparently There is NO black hole for quantum particles ! ( -see Hartle & Hawking - Phys Rev D 13 -2188 , (1976) .PS : . A physico-mathematical point to think : If one solves the Classical Einstein equations for the Sun (a spatial fixed Body of mass M ) one obtains the one century old Schwarchild solution with all the phenomena of singularities . But now consider the Sun in motion (with a full world line in the space time) or better , the existence of an additional Huge (Cosmological) electromagnetic field surround the Sun affecting the generated gravity by the Sun . Would the Einstein solution possesses the same geometrical properties of the "static " Sun with a world line purely in time , as the Schwarchild solution has ? . I think do not (just add a cosmological constant that every things is going to change-The singularity appears to disappear !)
What a great video. Congratulations to all involved in its making. I am persuaded that Penrose is correct, but puzzled by how these smart people are not disturbed by the existence of a singularity.
The music is a bit too loud. Otherwise good stuff :)
He is right.
I rather like this presentation very much but have a couple of gripes, offered helpfully I trust:
1) Sabine is pronounces Zab-een-eh. You wouldn't like your name mispronounced.
2) The host makes a couple of ridiculous sounding misstatements, which I could see through, but which I feel would confuse the lay listener. E.g., "Co-ordinate time is meaningless" - very misleading. So the "t" co-ordinate in the most commonly presented form of the Schwartzschild metric is meaningless? These sorts of sloppy statements make me cringe.
best of luck DKB
Indeed, but sometimes using correct pronunciation makes one appear pretentious. As regards your second point, you have a reasonable quibble here, but unpacking it would take too long and bore the pants off most viewers. Basically all coordinates are, a priori, meaningless. They can be given meaning by specifying an observer and using the metric. The Schwarzschild t coordinate does represent the time measured by a stationary observer far from a Schwarzchild black hole, however, this coordinate, and way of measuring time, is meaningless for an infalling observer who crosses the event horizon. The video is not really wrong, but takes reasonable short-cuts to make the presentation digestible.
Consider this: It seems to me that Penrose' own CCC hypothesis, is contingent on what he is arguing against here, with singularity. NULL, as with infinity, may only be eternally approached in the 'real' world. If 'scale' is taken as a fourth, infinite spatial dimension, with an associated time dilation, wouldn't the singularity issue go away?.. as space and time 'shrink' eternally toward an infinitesimal point, that is never 'reached'. *spelling
Terrific content as always!
CCC does resolve the Big bang sinuglairty not the black hole one. No one in this film argues the singualrty is real, only that Kerrs solution doesn't work
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks for the reply and clarification.
Black holes with the mass of a star would not exist, nor would they be needed.
These stellar-mass black objects would be black stars expanding in space. They would be much more dense than observable expanding stars.
They would radiate expanding dark energy / light.
The expanding dark photons were denser. Their internal movement / time slower and thus they would not interact with the observable matter. They would be pushed through telescopes and telescopes without transmitting information about the object from which they came.
When this expanding dark energy is pushed into an observable expanding star orbiting an expanding black star, more energy would be pushed into these expanding dark energy densifications there. Their internal pressure would increase. Internal movement / time would speed up. They would expand faster and would eventually begin to collide with the expanding cores of the expanding atoms of the observed expanding star deep within the observed expanding star on their way to the center of this star.
Expanding faster, this observable expanding matter could do nothing but push faster away from the center of the observable expanding star, and the direction would of course be this expanding black star.
Because of the rotation on its axis, the direction would be slightly past this expanding black star because of the delay.
And this is how this expanding black star would cause the expanding matter of this expanding observable star to push towards itself without any pulling forces and without space being curved somehow.
Its ability to attract matter would be an illusion.
Naturally, the observable expanding star would be pushed in a spiral path away from the expanding black star and this faster exploding/expanding matter would act as an explosive fuel that would push the observable expanding star away from the expanding black star in the same proportion as matter and light expand.
Logically simple beautiful 🙂
🤔
In relation to the tidal phenomenon, I liked what I wrote that there is a constant flow between the center of the Moon and the Earth, where these expanding condensations of dark energy circulated by the nuclei of the expanding atoms are constantly pushed into the opposite sphere and are activated during the push through each other.
And corresponding already activated thickenings are pushed against, so the probability of encountering the next ones increases, etc., etc.
Now these concentrations of dark energy interact more strongly with matter, accelerating its expansion, so the sea also expands more strongly.
Hence the tidal phenomenon on both sides of the expanding Earth without a pulling force and without curved space.
😀
time has no physical existence.....all this discussion about proper time is pointless
These type of videos help the public appreciate science and in improves their reputation with the public. It's good to know that somebody can write a paper and everyone can come together and discuss the pros and cons of a theory and give open critiques
thanks , I couldn't agree more
No amount of mathematical gymnastics can prove anything in physics.
Yeah… as if General Relativity and Quantum theory is a wrong shit
In doubles slit experiment, with single electron fired at a time, doesn't the interference pattern means that time means nothing for electrons and below-quantum level? Otherwise, how the interference pattern can be explained?
Then if time is zero, hence by analogy distance is zero as well to solve the entanglement problem.
Conclusion, both problems are solved and no more work for the physicists. In particular those who beleive the creation or the big bang started at infinitly small point. As it turned out time and dimensions meant nothing at that point and a little bit afterwards.
Can somebody explain?
As an offshoot a time-sensor property like minimum mass or other property, can be decided depending on this experiment. In other words what is the minimum property of a sub -particle to start sensing time?
These sub-particles are the true God's particles where time means nothing. TISP time independent sub-particles. These remarks must point to a new classification of matter where the time is the dividing line.
This throws question marks about the exact time of the big bang. Or it make it only from our point of view!
So time meant nothing at the "bigining". Hence no arrow of time and entropy at the beginning of creation? So is time independent all the way so far? Or it appeared as a consequence of some particles with certain properties. Hence disappear when they seize to exist, End Of Time.
So maybe we still need physicists.
15:00 or thereabouts: Sounds like a variant on one of Zeno's paradoxes.
yes there is a similarity i think
You are right in that Zeno's paradox involves the problem of completing an infinite number of tasks in order for Achilles to pass a tortoise. Zeno's mistake is to use a metric that measures the number of tasks without taking into account the fact that each task takes a fraction of the time to complete compared to the previous task. The shrinking ruler is simply a variant of this. That said, the time coordinate = time measured by a distant observer shrinks in exactly this way when measuring the trajectory of an observer crossing the horizon. Schwarzschild time is like Zeno's enumeration of tasks ... it gives a pathologically bad description of horizon-scale physics
It is unclear to me why you would use a video blogger like Sabine and an educational channel like PBS as the response instead of Kerr himself. You let Penrose make his case and then uses bloggers and educational channels as a refutation? This is poorly done. At the very least you should have approached Kerr himself for a response. Did you do that? Even if he didn't reply you could say you tried. But it is not clear that you did. As a consequence for the general public you helped clear up nothing, and, from what I can tell, take pot shots at other educational channels. As a scientist myself, I am quite unimpressed. Quality science presentation on youtube is rare enough, but having a channel act like physics is like politics with gotcha's is not how it should be done. Do better, that is assuming your intent is really to educate the public and help them understand science.
What are Hossenfelders contributions to physics?
She is very valuable for inducing a bit of sobriety in all the hype
@@hakonberg8003 usually yes, but not in this case.
also, she has published a fair few papers in the literature, I'm not suggesting she isn't a serious scientist; she is. But in this case, she has got it horribly wrong. But hey even Einstein made mistakes.
@@hakonberg8003 "all the hype"… what hype? can you be more specific?
@@grandeau3802maybe hype isn't the right word, "clickbaity sensationalism maybe, where small advances, if any, are presented as major breakthroughs. Quantum computing comes to mind. I think Sabine is good at bringing it down a notch😉
If Everything has angular momentum,then so would the singularity
But singularity is a point and point has no axis to rotate
So it becomes a disk
Aum Namah Sudarshan Guruve
This assumes that matter remains matter at a singularity. More likely, matter transforms to energy, or some massless boson like photons, which have no problem occupying the same "space".
@@lastchance8142 did the singularity which became universe after the big bang(expansion) also have some momentum??
@@varunsharma3532 Both linear and angular momentum are properties of particles created after the "big bang", and are manifestations of kinetic energy.. The primordial singularity was likely just pure potential energy. In truth, we just don't know.
@@lastchance8142 does a ball of energy has angular momentum?
The so called "black hole" is contingent upon matter being attracted to huge densities and pressures.
Why then does this matter not undergo fission and turn to pure radiating enetgy{photons} long before this so called "singularity" state?
It would seem logical that the density and subsequent pressure would cause ALL of the matter it radiate away after a particular extreme density is met.(a,k,a a nuclear explosition}.
No explanation has been given as to why this does not happen therefore the idea of a "black hole singularity" is a mathematically consistnt illusion that cannot exist in any place but within a theorum on paper written by a mathematician.
Putting it another way "black holes" do exist in the Penrose paper but nowhere else.
Roger created an entirely consistent illusion in the same way Esher did with his staircases but these consistencies exist and are true only on paper and not in reality.
So he recieved a Nobel Prize for an elaborate dream fantasy that makes sense.
The blacksphere I believe is correct, we see jets from poles this would imply a sphere is indeed present. The boundary I believe will increase and decrease with availability of material. The more material available the boundary grows to massive proportions and will decrease as this material is used as fuel. Why. The strength of the blacksphere is proportionate to the strength of the horizon. As the build up of charged material builds up on the boundary of the horizon the spheres strength must increase its a direct result and the appearance is that of a super massive boundary. Comparisons could be found measurement taken as proof. The sphere sits in an infinite ♾️ environment, that environments law is VEM =0Msquared. All mass is equivalent and gravity is not present at or near the the blacksphere or boundary. 2nd law is appropriate at the boundary as friction occurs due to opposing forces of the same nature one positive the other negative. Which in turn creates what we call galacty. EMFSYSTEMS. It's the starting position that is important, everything else is emerged from this position. Penrose is a favorite. I believe the whole thing needs to looked at again. Mistakes have probably happened from the beginning. Or misinterpreted due to the period in which these giants lived. Our knowledge has increased exponentially and should be applied. It's all awsome I do love the fights really and want to do just that. Maybe soon hopefully, blacksphere never grow or radiate away. There always there to consume charged particles as they are present. Peace ✌️ 😎.
A Fine Parameter
lol
A fine mess parameter
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Some one could ask NASA about the way they do slingshot's, with their space craft.
Newtons laws didn't work for that. When Elon's car didn't make it's shot, I said Ah to myself,
so NASA made him learn the hard way eh?
Just out of curiosity, is the narrator your wife? I've always just assumed that she was, but I just realized I don't actually know. No particular reason I'm asking beyond simply curiosity, so feel free to "No comment" me if you'd prefer not saying. Either way, another really interesting video. Keep up the good work. :)
she is
Thank you.
your welcome
Only thing I understood was Penrose explanation of time.
When you go up against Penrose he laughs at you and you lose.
Roger is a much nicer guy than that!
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zx he laughs at ppl sometimes
@@Smood47 Indeed ...
Again, Sabine makes statements about things she doesn't really understand. It seems to me she builds her reputation on cheap shots, like "it's faith, not science", "sixty years people believed in singularities without actual proof" etc.
Also for some reason her video titled something like "there is no beauty in physics" was very popular, and many commented how she is great scientist cause she only cares for truth. I just don't get how people can think there is something deep in her videos.
We now believe space itself is a mono-pole right ✅️ very good. Lots to give and another answer found. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Requirement for Nobel - Sweater with tweed jacket
I wish Kerr could have the opportunity and desire to respond to these criticisms.
lets see if he does
@@PhilHalper1 Indeed that would be interesting.
And Sabine.
that Sabine person has been refuted more than a few times now. I'm not sure if her criticisms should be considered in the same way as others. good video
E: seeing their obvious "blunders" makes me think their intentions are not as pure and honest as some might think. humans are humans after all and agendas are what drives most. such a shame. massive W for Penrose.
people make mistakes though , even the best of us .
In which other areas has she been refuted?
Also, the statement in the intro is false. Penrose never discovered that black holes are real. Penrose is a theoretical physicist/mathematician, so he discovered nothing in reality. He only discovered or invented some new maths which pointed to some hypothesis, which in turn needed to be shown to most likely represent reality. Evidence points to black holes being factual, yet we really don't know much about them, and certainly we don't know and can not know what's beyond their horizon.
I think the music is really distracting.