@jumboJetPilot Exactly! The event horizon is the boundary surrounding a black hole, beyond which nothing-not even light-can escape. It’s often mistaken for a physical surface, but it’s really just a point of no return. The singularity, on the other hand, is the theoretical point at the very center where mass is thought to be infinitely dense. The event horizon doesn’t physically "circle" it in the way an orbit does, but rather it defines the region where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. A cool way to think about it: If you fell into a black hole, you'd pass through the event horizon without noticing-because it's just an invisible boundary-but once inside, all paths lead inevitably to the singularity. Are you imagining how this structure works in 3D space, or are you thinking of something more theoretical about singularities themselves?
How can a singularity have infinite mass if their original star formation was, say, 5 x the Sun's mass? Wouldn't the singularity only have that amount of mass, prior to consuming more mass?
black holes has specific mass its just that its so large we are still unable to compute for it, for example, if our sun turns into a black hole it will only be as large as a grain of sand. so imagine how big is the mass of a blackhole that is billion times larger than our sun.
@Mr_Poole Thank you for watching. Great question! The singularity itself doesn’t actually have infinite mass. What’s often described as “infinite” about a singularity is the density-mass squeezed into a volume so small that it approaches zero, making the density mathematically infinite in our current models. So, you're correct: the mass of the singularity should correspond to the original star's mass (plus anything it consumes afterward). For instance, if a star with five times the Sun's mass collapses into a black hole, that same amount of mass is now compressed into an incredibly tiny region. It’s not infinite mass, but it creates gravitational effects that can appear extreme-especially near the event horizon. The concept of infinity here is more about the limits of our physics. It’s likely that quantum gravity (which we don’t fully understand yet) would provide a clearer explanation that avoids actual infinities. What do you think-does this idea of “infinite density” feel more like a placeholder for something we’ve yet to discover?
@@InterstellarShadows Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that. I do feel like that is a placeholder, sure. I'm a firm believer that everything in nature, no matter how complex, can be explained in simple terms, once it's fully understood. (just like how the "god particle" is a bunch of reporters in a room, slowing down the person or "particle" trying to get to the other side, giving it mass). With that being said, I'm of the opinion that the singularity is just a 4th, possibly 5th, dimmensional Right Angle. Kind of like the corner of a wall, you traverse it to the edge, and you can't keep going, because the wall no longer exists beyond the edge, you have to turn with that right angled corner. Unfortunately, we're not aware of that right angle, so we can't explain it. - yet.
@Mr_Poole That’s a really intriguing perspective! The idea that singularities might be higher-dimensional structures-like a kind of "right angle" in a space we don't fully perceive-feels like a fresh way to think about them. It reminds me of how a 2D being on a piece of paper wouldn’t understand a 3D object passing through-it would just see strange, inexplicable distortions. If singularities are something like that, then perhaps our issue isn’t that physics breaks down, but that we’re trying to describe something using the wrong set of dimensions. Maybe quantum gravity or some future theory will let us "see" that extra-dimensional structure clearly. Your analogy with the Higgs mechanism is great, too-complex phenomena often become simple once we have the right framework. What do you think would be the key to unlocking this understanding? Would it be mathematics, new observations, or maybe even a fundamental shift in how we think about space and time?
![The Other Side of a Black Hole [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVPsNDonA84/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Other Side of a Black Hole [4K]](/img/tr.png)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
@0:50 - it’s the event horizon that “circles” the singularity.
@jumboJetPilot Exactly! The event horizon is the boundary surrounding a black hole, beyond which nothing-not even light-can escape. It’s often mistaken for a physical surface, but it’s really just a point of no return.
The singularity, on the other hand, is the theoretical point at the very center where mass is thought to be infinitely dense. The event horizon doesn’t physically "circle" it in the way an orbit does, but rather it defines the region where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
A cool way to think about it: If you fell into a black hole, you'd pass through the event horizon without noticing-because it's just an invisible boundary-but once inside, all paths lead inevitably to the singularity.
Are you imagining how this structure works in 3D space, or are you thinking of something more theoretical about singularities themselves?
Only if we could send a camera with tracking into a black hole
That would be an incredible experiment! Imagine the data we could collect about black holes!
How can a singularity have infinite mass if their original star formation was, say, 5 x the Sun's mass? Wouldn't the singularity only have that amount of mass, prior to consuming more mass?
black holes has specific mass its just that its so large we are still unable to compute for it, for example, if our sun turns into a black hole it will only be as large as a grain of sand. so imagine how big is the mass of a blackhole that is billion times larger than our sun.
@Mr_Poole Thank you for watching.
Great question! The singularity itself doesn’t actually have infinite mass. What’s often described as “infinite” about a singularity is the density-mass squeezed into a volume so small that it approaches zero, making the density mathematically infinite in our current models.
So, you're correct: the mass of the singularity should correspond to the original star's mass (plus anything it consumes afterward). For instance, if a star with five times the Sun's mass collapses into a black hole, that same amount of mass is now compressed into an incredibly tiny region. It’s not infinite mass, but it creates gravitational effects that can appear extreme-especially near the event horizon.
The concept of infinity here is more about the limits of our physics. It’s likely that quantum gravity (which we don’t fully understand yet) would provide a clearer explanation that avoids actual infinities. What do you think-does this idea of “infinite density” feel more like a placeholder for something we’ve yet to discover?
@@InterstellarShadows Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that.
I do feel like that is a placeholder, sure. I'm a firm believer that everything in nature, no matter how complex, can be explained in simple terms, once it's fully understood. (just like how the "god particle" is a bunch of reporters in a room, slowing down the person or "particle" trying to get to the other side, giving it mass).
With that being said, I'm of the opinion that the singularity is just a 4th, possibly 5th, dimmensional Right Angle. Kind of like the corner of a wall, you traverse it to the edge, and you can't keep going, because the wall no longer exists beyond the edge, you have to turn with that right angled corner. Unfortunately, we're not aware of that right angle, so we can't explain it. - yet.
@Mr_Poole That’s a really intriguing perspective! The idea that singularities might be higher-dimensional structures-like a kind of "right angle" in a space we don't fully perceive-feels like a fresh way to think about them. It reminds me of how a 2D being on a piece of paper wouldn’t understand a 3D object passing through-it would just see strange, inexplicable distortions.
If singularities are something like that, then perhaps our issue isn’t that physics breaks down, but that we’re trying to describe something using the wrong set of dimensions. Maybe quantum gravity or some future theory will let us "see" that extra-dimensional structure clearly.
Your analogy with the Higgs mechanism is great, too-complex phenomena often become simple once we have the right framework. What do you think would be the key to unlocking this understanding? Would it be mathematics, new observations, or maybe even a fundamental shift in how we think about space and time?
Infinite density. Because it's a point
AI generated spam
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! But it's not AI generated