The idea that our whole universe could exist inside a black hole is pretty amazing. It really reminds me of the meme about how life is formed from all of the elements created from a supernova, and ends with, “If you explode something hard enough, sometimes dust wakes up and thinks about itself”
To me, the most incredible thing about this is that people who study this subject can walk around freely without their brains exploding. What a confusing subject.
Not really. It all makes sense if you truly understand geodesics, because that is the basis of all the theories Matt is referencing . I will admit it requires a good imagination tho
Thats because there is a thin lining of coffee between their brains and their skull, which cushions the impact of explosive thoughts, which keeps their cranium intact.
Very few know that Einstein was pacifist and his boss in Germany was a creator of the first chemical weapon. Einstein backed Schrodinger's work on event horizon only to get him out from WWI trenches where he wrote his equation (though Einstein told himself that it was just math model having no reality). Recently Vivian Robinson, co-inventor of electronic microscopes, pin pointed up to the line Schrodinger's math mistake. If you like such stuff read more in Bob Lazar Cutting Edge.
So wouldn't this be a new way to think of multi-universal theory? Because it would mean, at least in theory, that there's potentially a greater/outer universe that spawns black holes that contain nested universes within it. Or it would mean we exist in a fractal reality where instead of turtles it's black holes all the way up and down.
@@Sporeboy87 no fractal because it repeats itself at high levels of resolution. Like a square inside a square inside a square. As the resolution increases or you go "deeper" there are more iterations of the thing at different scales. The thing about that though, is that the surface area of a fractal is infinite if you iterate it an infinite amount of times.
It could be. If there exist pockets inside of event horizons; and the variables of size, intensity of collapse/expansion.... we may very well be the current "too substantive" to be squashed out of existence instantly. In other words, gravity is the illusion that mass bends time, when it could just be: we are inside of an event horizon that is failing miserably (currently) to squash us out of existence, because we haven't dissipated enough yet
Just wanted to say, I'm 70, and started speculating a decade ago the analogies between the collapsing space inside a black hole, and the steadily expanding space-time universe in which we live. I've not known who or how to ask, but I'm so happy to hear it articulated. Now I can die in peace, knowing that speculation is in good hands. Thank You Matt.
It’s amazing how so many of us stumble upon theories that are later developed by people who actually study the science of that subject. I posit there’s a large number of average people out there that are closer to reality with their theories than they realize.
Then you realize it's not about the answer. It's about how you have changed (your understanding and knowledge) while looking for the answer. The existence itself is always there beckoning you to take another leap and go on another incredible journey...through SPACETIME. 😁😁😁
Black holes and the entire universe and anything and everything about these subjects are actually some of my very very very extreme favorite subjects of all time.
So, this video discusses the possibility of our universe being inside a black hole. I've also seen something about our universe possibly being on a 3D event horizon of a black hole in a 4D universe. I don't know if there's enough there for an episode, but it would be cool for Matt to discuss it.
Exactly, everyone keeps suggesting there is a 1:1 correspondence here between event horizons and cosmological ones, but the issue of dimensionality is not discussed.
At this point, there's kind of no question that there are 4 or more spacial dimensions. The question is why we can't perceive more than 3. But what is really cool is that, if someone or something was able to live outside our 3D space, they'd likely see through time, i.e. see "past"/"present"/"future". Of course that brings up whether things are pre-determined or if we can influence the future, and how much we can influence the future, but it's a really cool thought experiment.
@@r.a.l.p.h Or so you one of those people, everyone is just atoms and molecules huh? So if someone takes a life it means nothing because they're just rearranging the atoms right?
@@JVCA44 Lol, are you really this illogical mate? Every thing in your body has a purpose, everything in the world has a purpose, everything in the universe has a purpose but you? No, you have none and life and everything that exist is just meaningless 🤦♂, bro, well why do anything? why go to work, why do good? why go to school? why do anything if it's all meaningless?
Just reading these comments, I feel so humbled and appreciative of all our scientists and space enthusiasts. I have little knowledge beyond astronomy 101, so I basically have no idea what everyone is talking about…but I want to learn!
Well son soon you'll start getting hair in funny places , and you're gonna start thinking about girls 😆😆😆😆 then you'll realize all hoe's black , white whatever they're pretty much the same and you'll love em all .😆🤟🏼🤟🏼
@@underthetornado I think we are in a blackhole universe which is inside another blackhole universe inside another black hole universe inside another ....... And so on.
I like this idea because if true, it also answers the multiverse question. There are lots of black holes and therefore lots of little universes absolutely everywhere. And they could contain their own infinity of black holes. It all makes sense.
@@somethinsomethin7216 I know this is a terrible argument/response but if IF its true...the truth doesnt care if you dont understand it/if it doesnt make sense to you...
@@Bella-vt7ol you are right anything is possible in the realm of probability. But what is reasonable? It is insane, to think that we are very very very lucky, to have a universe that caters to life existing, but not only that, but life with consciousness. From a bottom-up perspective it is insane how we got here from natural means, from simplicity all the way to complexity of consciousness. Or the other hypothesis is there already is an eternal transcendent consciousness that created a universe with specific conditions to host life with consciousness. So more of a top-bottom approach
@@somethinsomethin7216It does and it doesn't. I think the hardest part to get your head around is that space and time might not be limited in scale in the way we understand and observe it. That a universe might be able to contain infinite universes within itself equally if not larger than itself. We think of space and time in it's physically observable state from our own perspective of 4 dimensional space and time.
I'm really glad you mention the infinite nesting at the end! It was bugging me the whole time. If the black hole contains black holes, well, then unless the one we are in is unique and the ones inside it are different, it means universes are fractal.
which is actually one of the things that really speaks for this idear. fractals show up in math all the time, and all over the place in nature. fractals is the most common thing in existence. But my min is breaking just trying to question what would be weirdest, a universe that has a clear start/end or a never ending one. but Infinity is for me way more understandable than true nothing. tho also am pretty sure true nothing and Infinity is the same thing. Often people against science say: "but the universe could not come form nothing" and it kind of baffles me that so many people are cocky enough to believe they have any clue what true nothing can and cant do. People might think they have a grasp of what "having nothing" means but no, no one has ever had nothing, theres always something. to even make something that gets close to what true nothing is has yet to be achieved. We have invited 0 but honestly 0 is such a bug in math, like the fact we dont know how to calculate 1 divide by 0 seems to me to point at the fact that 0 is not a real number just like infinity is not a real number but a concept.
@@MouseGoat Really enjoyed reading your comment, I hope i can add some more fuel to your fire. So before I get into it, vsauce has a video on infinity that's really good. Talks about infinite sets. Secondly, most scientists would agree this universe has a clear start but no clear end. Now, to get right into your comment. Our understanding of the big bang goes back to fractions of a second after the universe began, but not all the way. There is this little period at the very beginning that we can't really account for. Now, our equations tell us that this beginning was infinitely small and dense, like the singularity at the centre of a black hole. This doesn't mean it was - usually divide by zero stuff or infinities popping up mean the maths is no good, rather than a literal description of reality. Inflation is the part of the big bang that people like roger penrose take issue with. There isn't really any evidence to suggest we came from nothing, it's just a natural assumption that if we came from something very, very small, then that must have come from something smaller and so on til you reach 0. But, as zenos put forward in ancient grecian times, you can never slice down to actual 0!
yes. although it may be more meaningful to say that fractals exhibit many of the properties that tend to be present in sufficiently complex and interrelated systems, such as our universe. I'm of 2 minds, as fractals are mathematical and the universe physical, it's difficult to say which is a category of the other.
those of us who would like to emphatically thumbs up this video several times, and who take infinity seriously, should form a social group of some sort. I would very much like to have many conversations on such things.
@@MouseGoat yah nothing doesn't exist because by definition it's nothing. once you have an idea of something, like the idea of nothing, you have something. I think this causally and statistically means that there should be either : A: an infinite collection of all possible combinations of all possible things, which would inevitably stretch beyond our current definition of what is possible or B: an arbitrary (and statistically speaking very large in relation to our observations) set of possible things, that we should never assume terminates just beyond our understanding. these things may be functionally indistinguishable from the perspective of everything in existence. thoughts?
Fun fact, black holes get less dense without limit the bigger they are, because they have a radius r = (2G/c^2) * M directly proportional to their mass. For example, a black hole with the mass of our universe would have a Schwarzschild radius about the size of our universe and a density about the density of our universe.
if the universe were inside a black hole would we be able to detect matter (or energy) leaking out due to hawking radiation? what would the shrinking of the black hole look like from inside our universe that is in the black hole?
That's what I'd like to know. I'm assuming it would be energy leaving the system, so it would look like a negative energy with the daughter universe, and that could make the theory falsifiable. However, these video have taught me that I know nothing about physics!
It wouldn't be visible at all to us, since everything stops for infinity at the event horizon, from outside the event horizon. So we would never see anything
@@jogleby I think that the "inside a black hole" argument requires the "black hole = white hole" assumption he mentions at the end, in which case Hawking radiation is balanced by cosmic background radiation absorption. So probably the answer is that for it to be possible that we're inside a black hole, then there is nothing to detect as total energy stays constant.
I’ve always wondered about this. Mostly because of the theories behind the Big Bang. I always thought that maybe that’s what happens inside a black hole.
Matt, you started me on this journey 4 years ago. I couldn't believe that pie chart showing that we understood less than 5% of the universe. This one is fantastic. Putting some science into my speculations about the role of black holes in the formation of the universe 👍
I’ve been watching you for years now. Honest criticism, you’ve become WAYYY better at talking to the camera in the last few years… love your videos now! Good job dude!!
This is exactly the way I imagine our Multi-verse looks like. The fractal structure of never-ending hard to put in words beatiful infinite reality we're living in.
When you use the term "the universe" what exactly do you mean or what exactly are you trying to convey when you use that term? Your problem and it is a very real problem, is conceptual and the fact that you cannot see that demonstrates what your problem is
@@vhawk1951kl I said "multi-verse" or "reality", I didn't say universe. For me "a universe" is just another iteration of a never-ending process. Can I describe that process (fractal multi-verse)? I could describe how I imagine it, but not in the youtube comments section. Can I "demonstrate it?" No. And most likely no one will. Ever. Because it's physically impossible to experiment that.
@@tudordima3468 exactly, that's how I think it too. You can somehow and I repeat somehow imagine it inside your brain. But, explaining it with words is near impossible.
Too bad there is not a shred of proof. You are a man of great faith to believe in an infinite amount of something. I have seen no evidence of any physical object being infinite.
This idea just makes me picture the ending of the first Men in Black movie where a (our?) galaxy was contained inside a marble in a game being played by larger beings.
I think about this kinda thing all the time. Like what if our entire universe and existence is just the equivalent of an atom in an infinitely larger universe which we'd never be able to see because the scaling is so great we wouldnt be able to decipher or even comprehend its existence
So glad I'm not the only one with these crazy thoughts either! My version is that what we call our universe is just one cell in a body in an infinitely large (from our perspective) universe. Likewise, one atom in our existence is an entire infinitely small universe to someone else... and so forth, in both directions (larger and smaller). Is this what physicists mean when they talk about other dimensions? 🤷🏼♀️
What if we're in only the most recent big bang? Just as galaxies crash into each other and black holes grow and swallow everything. What if two black holes grow so large and come together, boom,big bang. A cycle that repeats every 100 ish billion years give or take. Just a thought for when you can't sleep ... sorry. ; 》
@@mamoros56 I like to think a little darker, that the earth is a "damaged cell" and it's like humans will cause issues to the larger being if we spread out into the universe. Just shower thoughts
@@mamoros56 and we are cancer eating away at the cell and trying to spread to other planets and in time spread to other universes destroying every planet we move to by just simply living.
Taking the time and effort, and having a good tutor, can help us understand it. At that point, after attaining better understanding, I think the surprising thing will be that it's *still* a straight path into madness.
I think it's plausible, but then, when we've created micro black holes with the LHC, it's also plausible that inside that micro black hole existed a micro universe that experienced the big bang, infinite time, and the delusion of all existence, in what was a fraction of a second for us.
That’s honestly very terrifying and beautiful at the same time. The amount of time we have been in a black hole could mean we live in a much bigger universe with possibly infinite time. I don’t know how people carrying on their lives with a puzzle like this.
You know something else: we probably existed and will exist infinite times if times is infinite. Existing here for the first and last time, a incredible small fraction of infinite, is just not realistic
@@dieterrosswag933 If you define "us" as life then you are probably correct. If you define it as separate individuals with memories and identities, I doubt it. We are matter and have a finite time.
I love the explanation you gave in the beginning that space is flowing like a river. Thank you for mixing it up and sharing your interpretation of the science and not copy and pasting whats already been done. Keep it up.
I wonder if black holes are creation points of new universes. As far as we know big bang came to be from extremely hot and dense point, so since the center of a black hole is also so dense that it’s volume is almost zero, maybe black holes just gather matter to the point it reaches critical mass and expands to a new universe
Man! What an amazing time we live in! That we can explore the universe with such technology and ponder the deepest structure of the universe with such great minds is so exhilarating and exciting! Thank you professor for spending so much of your time bringing us hard won knowledge and go
@honkhonk8009 He most definitely is... "Matthew John O'Dowd is an Australian astrophysicist. He is an associate professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College of the City University of New York and writer and host of PBS Space Time on RUclips."
Every since I was a child, I've been fascinated with the idea that all things are within other things. Sparked entirely from a visual comparison based on an extreme zoom in of a human eye, and an extreme zoom out of galactic images; such as nebula clouds. While universes within atoms seems rather outlandish, I do like the idea still. But I am continually fascinated with the comparisons between a blackhole singularity and the singularity at the beginning of our universe. Perhaps each blackhole is actually a child birthed from our universe, just as we were born as one. Each one experiencing their own form of natural selection in ways we could only speculate upon. Well, I at least like the idea of it.
This has become my favorite space theory of all time, first because it would kinda make sense, and if proved true, it would answer so many questions while also opening the way to a whole new series of thoughts and discussion on what's out there, beyond our bounded universe.
@@davidparadis490 An individual or group of individuals still have to mix the audio, and they still need the skill to do it well. It is fine to admire their work.
If this is true, that means black holes could contains universes like ours, which also could contain black holes which also could contain universes, etc. Perhaps we could be "stucked" between the infinite small and the infinite big, time flowing differently for everyone, like 1 sec for us is 10 000 years in a black holes.
I dont think so. Matter at an atomic level cannot be reduced below that size, so in my opinion at the center of every black hole is a mass infinitely dense rather than a space, because atoms are the bare minimum, at some point the "universe in a black hole's planets" would be smaller than an atom which isn't possible.
@@HibekiGuy The idea could be that the laws of physics and constants are adjusted based on the black hole's formation, so the minimum size of the atom could be much smaller in the black hole.
@@HibekiGuy I mean, who knows what the laws of physics are in other universes. They could be completely different. But it’s a moot point really because I doubt we could ever know
I’m just a regular guy but I’ve always had strange ideas since I was a child. And as am a grown man now it strikes me that a lot of what I think about the universe without having any real knowledge is shared by many scientists and other people. I guess that’s INSTINCT as we are part of this universe.
I truly do wonder if our universe is circular and spacetime simply wraps around to where you'd wind back up at these same spot traveling in any straight 1D direction OR..... Is the universe flat and has a folding edge or possibly carries on forever on a infinite plane... Guess the world will never know :/
Your ideas don't occur in a vacuum and it's not surprising that many people will be led by observation to similar conclusions. It's not "instinct", it's pattern recognition. Now being able to argue your ideas logically, that's the next step and that's how science works.
i wish I could rewatch every episode from scratch now, you're in for such a treat! The earliest episodes are a bit rougher production but still brilliantly written
Question: We've discussed that matter or "information" does not change in any way once it crosses the event horizon of a black hole. In a sense, it is frozen in time never to be altered. If in fact we are in a black hole could the Microwave Background Radiation be this matter or "information" that is forever frozen on the surface of the black hole that contains the entirety of our universe, seeing as it never changes?
What Matthias said: the information cannot be altered from outside the event horizon once it crosses into the black hole. It could, however, change within by another force
I thought a blackhole was when a star goes supernova and collapses on itself, implodes and then explodes? We are inside a star that went supernova? what? that doesn't make any sense
@@ajcook7777 Generally speaking that describes a stellar origin black hole yes - but there is speculation that not all black holes are formed through this process. At the end of the day a black hole is merely a celestial object of such huge mass that its gravity allows nothing to escape - not even light/em waves once it reaches the event horizon. For all we know the net gravitational effect of large clusters of galaxies actually causes much the same effect as a black hole, and we simply cannot view it from within.
"Biocosm" has been on my reading list for a while. In the book, it supposedly proposes a "biological" evolutionary model of the cosmos where successful universes create more black holes, which are used to simulate universes with slightly different properties. I like the idea of advanced civilizations figuring out how to use black holes as giant universe simulators to do incredibly complex computations with, and some of those simulated universes go on to create more simulated universes, and maybe complex life gets more and more abundant with each generation.
I find it very disturbing with the idea that there are advanced beings that's okay with creating all these f'up realities... for no matter what reason...
@@Napoleonic_Sif you think about it we can kill ants without thinking about it just how these beings if they're real create realities without a second thought
I actually had this very question running through my head for a few days. My problem is I'm in no way smart enough to get much further than that. Thank you for making this so well timed
Not smart enough or not enough time to learn the math needed? The fact that you spend time contemplating subjects like this suggests to me that it is the latter... ;)
I've been waiting for this video for so freakin long. It's exactly what I've thought since learning how black holes work, especially the space/time flip that is supposed to happen when you cross the event horizon. It makes perfect sense that the time of infinite density being the big bang. We were just assuming the direction of the flow of time was the same inside a black hole instead of it being mirrored. Guess the whole "white hole" thing is just what another black hole looks like after you get to the other side.
Honestly, it makes perfect sense. The mind blowing question is "are there infinite black/white holes in an infinite hierarchy or are there an origin universe where all universes and sub-universes are in?"
@@ildar5184 that we create in the future and send to the past through a man made white hole, because we have never seen one and would have even crazier properties than a black hole 🤷♂️
That's the fun thing about infinite series even if there's a hierarchy you can't tell it imagine standing inside a pair of parabolic mirrors where space time would be bent around you in all ways and you wouldn't be able to make sense of where the start or the end of anything is that's infinite universe is nested within each other they can contain maximum fidelity over and over again and you would never be able to tell the difference because if you look up your ceiling would just Encompass down into your floor and become your floor to become your ceiling and so on and so forth so there is no need for an end or a beginning
This encompasses what gets me thrilled about your work so well. Great job tying in so many ideas and presenting it in a way that lets the viewer hypothesize before you empirically lead us through. These ideas are a large part of what makes physics and science in general so interesting to people. In a world where it’s easy to get lost in the day to day scope of our lives, you and others who do this work make a thrilling testament as to how wild the ‘bigger’ picture might be and how fun it can be to think about.
I can't be the only one who as a college physics student I thought that each singularity at the center of a black hole might start of a universe inside of it. It's such an obvious conclusion to come to. Very cool to see that idea getting some actual weight behind it in the scientific community. (dang, that was almost 20 years ago now.. I'm old af)
Same here by just doing some Google research on NASA websites etc To me it would make sense that the Big bang is what happens when a black hole is formed or entered and the Big crush would be when we meet the singularity
@@hales6547 that and a thousand other random stories that have no proof... but I suppose monkey's typing forever will eventually write Shakespeare's complete works. Maybe you are right and you will find out at the end of time, more likely you need to do something useful now.
It is definitely interesting, but what about matter and decay like he mentions? Are they just smaller universes or is string theory coming into play? If it wasn't for expansion and decay I would have thought that black holes will eventually all come together and become such a powerful entity so that it sucks everything back from the furthest reaches like in the cyclical universe shown in Futurama. I thought of that myself as well but didn't seem to work. The theories in this episode are amazing but still need explanation.
I concur it's a plausible theory. This is the stuff I love to ponder in the timeless space between wakefulness and sleep. Much more satisfying than infinite sheep 😊
whilst i suspect that there are some definitive physics saying that it isnt the case, ive always thought that blackholes all seed either into separate singularities (one for each universe), or all seed into one singularity which, when all the matter in a certain area/universe is captured, becomes so intensely compressed that it erupts into a big bang and then expansion- rinse and repeat.
The idea that all black holes lead to a single singularity is very wrong. The base requirements for a singularity is a point in space, and, as we all know, you cannot have two points in space equal each other. Else causality would break. But each black hole having it's own separate big bang equivalent singularity is unprovable. So you can believe it if you want, no one can't prove you're wrong.
@@simonlockley-evans9349 Yeah but if you think about it that way the likely chance of our universe being the "original" universe quickly becomes very low.
@@cheese4840 Agreed 100% so low in fact as to be beyond the normal range of human understanding. We are talking extremely large numbers that the human mind finds difficult to comprehend.
@@pixelkat1819 my dad got charged at by a cow (not a bull) when he was hiking in France. The cows horn sliced into his leg and had to get a huge amount of stitches on his upper thigh.
the idea of a nested universe makes so much more sense to me than the idea of a multiverse. there are so many parallels between earth scale and the cosmological scale, universes creating more universes just seems to fit the general parallel better. there is also the factor of our universe expanding inexplicably - what if that expansion is powered by the constant feed of matter and space time into a black hole? or what if the collapsing of the initial star speeds up over time, explaining the acceleration of universal expansion? idkkkk it's all theory and questions i have but it's so interesting to think about!
I beleive multivariate might still be possible even on top of this theory. Nothing is set in stone on how things happen there is no destiny as we all have free will in our choices. In another version of reality there are infinite ways things could've happened maybe an alternate you did something slightly different today. There isn't a way to prove this theory unless we can control time itself maybe even invent a device to jump to different universe inside different black holes.
@@ghosthunter0404 I’m not really sure that multiple diffferent universes of our realities is how the multiverse really works….I kinda think it’s being used as a misnomer for the infinite multidimensional existence of the universe itself, as well as ourselves
Could the direction of time that we experience as "forward" actually be backward to someone observing from outside our universe/black hole? In that case, all of the matter that to us looks like is expanding away from us would actually be falling into our black hole if we were to watch from outside it, I'm probably wrong but to me this would seem to help explain why the big bang was a moment of extremely unlikely low entropy, since in that view the collapsing of the universe would be inevitable, and that period of low entropy is what caused our perception of times direction to flip (maybe?), and the collapsing of the universe into the big bang may be what it looks like from the inside of a black hole as it radiates and shrinks due to hawking radiation
I remember a book by Isaac Asimove, forget the title but I think it was discussing if we were alone In the universe. One of his equations worked out the density of a theorised black hole with the mass of the known universe. The answer came out to pretty much the density of matter around us anyway. Leading him to leave the question hanging, are we in a black hole?
Could being inside a blackhole explain dark energy, as everything is being accelerated towards the singularity which because of the distortion of space-time inside a blackhole is actually located in all directions around you, so everything appears to be getting pulled away from you?
Dark energy almost certainly doesn't exist since it has been shown that cosmological principal does not apply within our observable universe since the cosmological principal where it is assumed the universe is at some scale homogenous enough for the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric to be able to be applied to our observable universe depends on the assumption that the CMB dipole is purely kinematic in origin as any other dipole component being nonzero would eliminate the applicability of a scale of homogeneity where the FLRW metric could be applied within the observable universe. In the 1980's an experimental test was devised which could unambiguously test the pure kinematic dipole assumption though this test needed millions of cosmologically distant sources which could be used to construct a dipole in the sky that can be compared to the CMB dipole. If the dipoles match in magnitude and direction the CMB dipole is indeed kinematic however if they don't match in both magnitude and direction then the cosmological components to the CMB dipole are nonzero and thus sufficient to eliminate all models assuming the cosmological principal applying within the bounds of the observable universe. The results of Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 ApJL 908 L51 using a final sample of 1.36 million quasars measured by catWISE reveal a dipole with more than twice the magnitude of the CMB which results in a 4.9 sigma discrepancy (only a 1 in 2 million chance of being a statistical fluke) from the CMB dipole so we can largely rule out the assumption and any model that depends on it if looking at the situation objectively. Given that anisotropic cosmologies automatically produce the observed acceleration with anisotropic and inhomogeneous variation as had been largely demonstrated by work which doesn't implicitly assume the cosmological principal Occam's razor suggests there is no dark energy.
So, hear me out. If the Big Bang is essentially the singularity of a white hole that encompasses our universe, what if every black hole within our universe leads to a white hole, or in other terms another Big Bang singularity of an entirely different universe, essentially explaining the existence of an infinite multiverse. This would also mean that our universe is essentially the product of a white hole that correlates with a black hole from another universe as well. I know this is fairly different from the point being made in the video, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of an exponentially cyclical universe. Basically what I mean by that is that if you were to look at the smallest viewable particle of mass, and zoom out to an indefinite distance, eventually you would return to the same view of that particle, because the infinite nature of the universe isn't linear. The thought absolutely boggles my mind. edit: Nvm, I continued watching, and that exact theory was actually mentioned in the video... man the study of space time is amazing. Another edit: just realized this exponentially cyclical and infinite cycle I was trying to describe is called infinite nesting, and is also mentioned in the video 🤦♂️😅
I'm completely with you, in terms of the power and all-encompassing nature of cycles. I've been that way since I'd first really thought about Black Holes
@@skill2019 I mean what I posited was also a theory, so I wasn’t implying otherwise. Either way man, all of this is essentially a theory. We have absolutely no clue what the function or effect of a black hole is, but we know they exist almost entirely due to mathematical data and our currently understood laws of nature, such as physics. Would you still deny the existence of black holes with that in mind? If your answer is yes, then this conversation should be moot to you. If you believe in the existence of black holes, or even the Big Bang, then maybe you should be more open to suspending disbelief in light of probable theories and assertions.
For me I gain comfort and a calm serenity that we are all on the inside of an event horizon. Would be interesting to see if we can create a 3 dimensional image/projection from a small part of the CMB!!
No. This literally makes zero sense. As an ACTUAL astro-physicist, this is just embarrassing. Science is real and it matters. Hence, it doesn't mean you can just whip up fantasy, make-belief, hodge-podge nonsense that bears zero basis on anything factual. What an absolute sham and disgrace to science. You should be ashamed.
I'm enjoying the little sentence at the end of the videos detailing Matt's adventures within spacetime and our universe, he's like a little space explorer coming back to Earth to teach us new things and drop existential crises on us and then skeddaddles off to go on another adventure again... I love it! It's very amusing to imagine XD
It decreases crossing the event horizon. Space becomes more compact and time slows down. Entropy is rate of change. An increase of entropy is the rate/speed of change. The arrow of time is merely a memory matrix.
There is a theoretical limit to an amount of entropy per square inch, as all particles become perfectly spread out while being as compact as possible. All black holes exist at this limit. Because of this, when two black holes merge, the volumes of the two black holes prior does not equal the volume of the resulting black hole, but rather it is surface area that is conserved instead. This is because all the information of a black hole is encoded around its surface, and entropy cannot decrease but is already maximised.
Back in the 80's when I took ASTR 101, the professor had us work on the density of black holes. What would be the radius and density of a black hole if the mass of it were 1 kg, like what if you made a black hole by compressing something you could hold in your hand. Very tiny, very dense. What if it were the Earth? Still small, like a baseball if I recall, but less dense. The sun, larger, less dense. Keep adding mass, the radius is larger and the density is less. He then asked us to consider the theoretical density of the known universe. So it's always been in my head, the mass of the the universe, given that it would not need to be dense, could be a gigantic black hole, we live in, and have no idea what's outside. Update: What I mean by 'black hole' is what's inside the event horizon, not the mass singularity itself.
When I was quite young, I proposed The Big Cheese model of the Universe: that the Universe at large was eternal, but inside every Black Hole, the Singularity appeared as if it were the Big Bang of a universe contained within the event horizon of that singularity.
I had a very primitive model of special relativity that made sense to me in the third grade. I tied time dilation to the expansion of the universe, arguing that because the radius of the universe was larger in the future, something like centripetal force pushed faster objects slightly into the future. That doesn't work, as it assumes an objective frame of reference, but it was simple enough that I could explain it to someone.
I thought this many years ago as well, then later on the white hole theory was published, I think if a black hole has nothing else to absorb/eat eg outside of the event horizon could it possibly collapse on itself to the the singularity that then creates a Big Bang.
@@RenneDanjoule What are you talking about? Black Holes, at least until you get much beyond the event horizon, behave exactly as General Relativity predicts, and General Relativity has never failed a single prediction. We have observed objects that must be denser than any neutron star, and we have observed matter interacting with accretion disks. There is the recent famous "photograph" of a Black Hole, or more technically, the neighborhood around a Black Hole. We observe gravitational lensing. Not a single astronomical observation contradicts the existence and behavior of black holes. Do you even know what a plasmoid is, or does using the word make you feel smart?
This theory is so interesting, and actually, in a strange way, a more comforting thought than us being in a mysterious ever expanding "space". In fact, seems more logical than just a random "big bang" started everything from nothing. Now imagine being able to travel into blackholes, it'd mean universe hoping.
Finally!! I thought I was alone ruminating with this idea! My theory goes: We live inside a black hole that is part of a universe with over 3 dimensions. The rip from one point of its inside into our 3 dimensional world was our big bang. The fabric of space/time inside these black holes can be ripped apart and explode into other dimensions by the enormous amount of energy/matter incoming from a parent universe, or the primordial multi dimensional universe. I call these type of Massive Black Holes: Gargantuas.
If the universe was within a black/white hole, then wouldn't that explain away dark energy and the expansion of the universe as just being the result of gravity at a very large scale?
My theory is that gravity is the inverse of whatever force is expanding space-time. Otherwise all matter would be pulled apart from the stretching of space-time
My teori is that there is no black matter and there is no black energy . The space is expanding because a singularity or a huge black hole , that strech the space
This is heavy stuff. -- I think all of this is worth taking "seriously" in the sense that many discoveries began with a guess or "crazy" idea that later turned out to be true. We make advancements and discoveries by asking questions, some times seemingly absurd ones. It's how we learn.
@@mikekull7183 I mean, yes and no? No one claimed he knows everything about Gravity, so therefore no one has been objectively wrong. And yeah, we kinda do know an awful lot about Gravity already; it wasnt discovered last Monday.
One way to define a black hole is a region in which light can not pass to another defined region of space. It is cut off from that other region, as light can not pass between the two. Around our universe, in every direction, we observe a red shift that is proportional to distance of observed objects. Extrapolating, this means that at a great enough distance, light from those vastly distant objects will red shift to a frequency of zero and be undetectable to us by any means. So, this meets the criteria for us to exist inside a truly enormous, massive black hole. And we seem to be just fine trapped in here with all the observable universe to keep us company. But it may be an infinitesimal fraction of the universe outside its boundaries.
Hawking radiation means things going out of the event horizon which will never return. Which is what is happening to the cosmological horizon too because of expansion of the universe. Could the black hole shrinking relative to the universe be the same as universe expanding relative to the singularity?
Hawking radiation is not leaving the interior of the event horizon though. It's the result of virtual particle pairs splitting at the horizon such that one particle is outside and can escape the gravity but the other is inside and trapped. The radiation is the escaping particles, de-virtualized by their inability to rejoin their partner and annihilate.
Bear in mind that if the universe is inside a black hole, that black hole almost certainly doesn't have a real singularity - it'll likely be something more exotic, such as a 2d sphere, or a quantum fuzzball. A real singularity can't represent a universe - it doesn't have the complexity necessary to represent much of anything at all. Wherever math indicates a singularity, it's a very strong bet that something rather more complex and interesting is going on there. Similar to the way that the speed of light never actually *stops* you from going faster, it just approaches an infinite asymptote and time starts to warp instead. Similarly you should never be able 'reach' a singularity, even if you can always get closer to it, something akin to the speed of light should be kicking in as you approach infinite density which prevents that outcome.
Thats the jist of it. If compression is put on matter to shrink inward on itself in all directions then it would simply appear that the universe is expanding in every direction. Been waiting on this one for years. Ask a spaceman touched on it about 5 years ago too. His answer was essentially so what? Its possible and how does it change anything? I appreciate matt and his team's response much better.
@@khatharrmalkavian3306 I heard that explanation for Hawking radiation too, but have also heard since then several times it is incorrect. There is a good Science Asylum video on it.
So could the expansion of the universe be explained by us residing in a white hole? Maybe the inflation of dark energy is just more space-time being added to our universe from our progenitor universe's black hole.
This is the same thing I’ve thought for some time. It explains why black holes defy our scientific laws. The next question would be where the matter from the donor universe came from. I’m rolling with there still has to be divine creation in there, but it’s wild to think about.
I _think_ the one part that wouldn't be accounted for may be the acceleration of spatial expansion, while white holes would typically have constant spatial expansion. But don't quote me on that.
Gravitational waves expand space time. Since " nothing" exists outside of the universe it is infinite by definition and always will be no matter how much it "expands".
Question: How does this hypothesis account for dark energy and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe? If we say that the universe is similar to a time reversed Black hole shouldn't the flow of space towards the "outside" slow down instead of speeding up?
If you lived in a black hole, you'd look towards the event horizon and see matter accelerating faster as it got closer to it. Of course that wouldn't mean the the black hole was coming apart, just that matter was becoming energy and escaping at the boundary.
One problem with the whole notion of "dark energy" is that the No big crunch theorem proves that for any arbitrary initial conditions to the Einstein field equations, at least in the case of any initially expanding flat or open geometry spacetime noting that curved spacetime at sufficiently small scales looks flat, the only solutions that do not mathematically give self contradictory outputs are irreducibly nonlinear solutions where no maximum spatial volume can exist within any time slice since the off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never truly cancel out to be zero anywhere. (Note this is effectively a consequence of acceleration breaking time symmetry too). More importantly this says that all non self contradictory solutions show that for any arbitrary mass distribution while the over densities do allow the expansion of space to locally slow down the resulting underdensities created by the concentration of mass will *always* locally increase the rate of expansion such that the overall rate of acceleration always remains greater than zero globally. In essence for mass to attract space elsewhere must expand at an accelerating rate such that the total spatial volume within any given time slice of spacetime is always greater than zero. As the number of possible outcomes for a given universe globally is countably finite this spatial volume constraint can then be redefined in terms of entropy revealing that this constraint for all solutions which do not reach self contradiction is in fact the second law of thermodynamics. Since all other solutions produce self contradictory behaviors they are in essence unphysical solutions to the Einstein field equations which includes the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric unless spacetime is perfectly isotropic everywhere a.k.a. the linearizable FLRW metric is only physical if and only if spacetime is empty everywhere at all points in spacetime. For more on the No big crunch theorem see Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology: Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022 The physical solutions to the general Einstein field equations always reproduce an observed net acceleration of spacetime eliminating the need for "dark energy" which can be seen as a 1st order correction term to force fit observations to the FLRW model. This solution also automatically reproduces the second law of thermodynamics as an inherit property of spacetime itself and automatically provides an origin for the arrow of time. For the record the 2nd order correction term is the assumed purely kinematic CMB dipole which has been largely falsified to 4.9 sigma (only a 1 in 2 million chance of statistical fluke) as of Febuary 2021 See A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars cited Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 ApJL 908 L51 for the experimental test to falsify the pure kinematic dipole assumption. The higher order correction terms are the cause of the "axis of evil" problem with modern cosmology and the systematic errors associated with force fitting a unphysical cosmological model naturally resolve the so called Hubble tension.
@@Bit-while_going When you say you would see matter accelerate towards the EH, are you talking about matter outside of the EH, or inside the EH? “Looking” “back” towards the EH would be looking at the “past” for you since the time and space axis flips at the EH. The singularity isn’t at a particular spatial location relative to you. It is temporally in your future; inevitable. Likewise, the Event Horizon isn’t at a partial spatial location relative to you. It is temporally in your past. “Space” to you, would be the region encompassing everything at the same “time distance” from the Event Horizon/Singularity. So, I would imagine that anything “outside” of the Event Horizon would send light “toward” you, but it would take a spiraling path towards you losing energy as it travels through the expanding spacetime of the black hole so that you would not be able to detect it by the time it reaches you. This would be analogous to the Cosmological Event Horizon that we understand. Just take “out” “toward the Cosmological Event Horizon” and re-map it onto a spiraling grid and you’ll get the same description as the inside of a Black Hole’s Event Horizon. A lot of this stuff comes down to translating a vector space from one coordinate system to another. They all describe the same thing, but depending on the coordinate system (perspective), the results seem to be different. Like Einstein seeing the speed of light as the invariant while spacetime is variant even though spacetime was considered absolute prior to his work. This framing also seems to apply to quantum mechanics where things in the same quantum frame of reference are aware of the states within the same frame whereas anything in a different quantum frame of reference is unknowable.
Hi Matt, I absolutely love the show despite not having any formal education in physics beyond the age of 16. Your explanations of complex phenomena are incredible and have rekindled my interest in the subject! I've been mulling over a question to which I haven't found an answer on the internet. I wondered if you could provide some insight. If two black holes were orbiting each other very closely and their event horizons overlapped, what would happen to a particle that entered into the overlapping section of both event horizons? All geodesics lead to the singularity beyond an event horizon, but they can't lead to two singularities. My theory (based on no maths and purely on conjecture) is that the possible geodesics of the particle all remain within the overlapping "Venn diagram-esque" section of the event horizons as the black holes' orbits decay. As the black holes get closer and the overlap in their event horizons gets bigger, the particle's possible geodesics include the new, larger area of spacetime. Then, either, the particle meets both singularities simultaneously at the point at which they merge, or when the black holes eventually merge, all of the particle's possible paths point to the "new" combined singularity. I picture it as though the particle is dragged around inside the overlapping sections of the event horizon. I would really appreciate it if you could provide clarity on this! Alternatively, please let me know if this has been answered previously, or whether this question is completely nonsensical. Thanks, Hugo
When two perfectly round soap bubbles are squished together you don't get overlaps of their surface, but you get two joined bubbles where the part that should be overlapping is now the edge of both bubbles and they are no longer round in that area - straight line. They divide the air pressure as efficiently as possible to minimize surface tension.
there is no overlap. Black holes bend space-time to infinity. The way the light takes into a black hole or out of a black hole is infinite, and with it the distance we measure. One black hole literally needs to travel infinitely long (both in distance and in time) to reach the event horizon of another black hole. Which is not possible, since u assume a finite time the universe existed. There is quite literally infinite space between u and every event horizon.
just buy some good reference books about black hole harmonics, their thermodynamics, wave dynamics, or something which gives deeper understanding of their behaviour mathematically. Find and read good research articles which are published every month in reputed journals. Finally, talk to some good astrophysicists and professors who give regular lectures about this topic. Only then you will understand the VAST nature of the black holes. Its ok if you dont have any formal education in this, but you can start learning right now instead of wondering for answers on internet.
You have an image where the singularity of the white hole and the singularity of the black hole are paired with the event horizons going in opposite directions in time. However, if you pair the event horizons with the white hole singularity at the beginning and the black hole at the end, you have an expansion then contraction of a spiral universe.
The one thing I always wondered is if time will eventually be observed to be an actual physical object of some sort or if time will always remain as a universally accepted idea to measure the length of observation or certain events. Like a 24 hour day and 365 day year doesn’t actually exist we just all accept the breakdown of how long our earth takes to rotate on its axis or orbit around the sun. In the end time as we know it is just a byproduct of mathematics
If time is indeed a dimension of space time like height, width and so on, it would probably be best to think of it as a geographical concept rather than a force or similar. You can only perceive a single instant, so it feels like you’re being forced downstream, but if you think about it in geographical terms… In that case, assuming you remain entirely stationary, you can get an xyzt coordinate for yourself where t represents the amount of ‘space’ you occupy in the fourth dimension - what you perceive as your own finite lifespan. Ergo, you don’t stop existing. The rest of humanity simply moves to a location where you are not present and, as far as the universe is concerned, you’re right where you’ve always been. But of course, you’re always moving, so your true location is everywhere you’ve ever been or will be. My head hurts.
Ok lets put it this way. If there was no observer of time progressing time would cease to exist only position and progression. It was here, then here then here... Etc. So it really simplifies what time is. It will be here as some point. Was here at another point. We make time more finite and discriminatory when i was 2 on this day it was here. This happened on that day. Take us out of the picture there is less meaning and more detachment. Im forgetting a term sorry....
No. This literally makes zero sense. As an ACTUAL astro-physicist, this is just embarrassing. Science is real and it matters. Hence, it doesn't mean you can just whip up fantasy, make-belief, hodge-podge nonsense that bears zero basis on anything factual. What an absolute sham and disgrace to science. You should be ashamed.
Barring the fact that we don't actually have any evidence, I feel like this makes sense. I guess black holes and white holes are like two sides of a chemical reaction: something things go in one side and come out the other looking a bit different, but all the building blocks for each are still there.
The cosmological event horizon depending on your location in the apparent centre of that universe seems to make it more 'virtual' than the presumably location independent event horizon of a black hole.
we are at the center of the "observable universe" which is the part of the universe we can observe. it is "virtual" yes. we have no idea and never will know what's beyond that limit
Yes. The observable horizon is virtual event horizon, and essentially descriptive rather than physical. In that regard I don't know that it is a great analogy or reflection of a black hole's event horizon, which does not appear to be virtual at all. If you go with the holographic principle, and suggest a 2D black hole event horizon as the 'structure' from which our 3D universe arises, then that 2D surface would in effect be 'infinitely' far away from us. That would be a 'real' event horizon to our universe, in that you could never see or approach it. By definition, you can never actually see or approach a true Event Horizon from 'inside' it. But the moment you say something is 'infinitely' far away, it's really more of a linguistic error than a mathematical statement - it would be better to say that our 3D coordinate space is *derived from* that 2D one, but not physically relative to it at all. Sort of an 'everywhere and nowhere' sort of situation. You couldn't reach the event horizon - you're already a part of it. It *is* the film from which our universe is projected. Again, that's all assuming that the Holographic Principle is accurate.
What we usually call "The Event Horizon" of a black hole is actually just the border beyond no light can ever reach a still standing observer that is infinitely far away from the black hole. However, if you are falling into a black hole then light below that event horizon can actually reach you (at a time after you have crossed the event horizon as well). So an in falling observer would effectively see a different event horizon that is further down. So event horizons are always observer dependent.
In the case of a black hole, hawking radiation slowly accelerates as the black hole shrinks in mass, eventually destroying the black hole entirely (theoretically) in a large release of energy in a very short time. In many ways the expansion of the universe sounds a lot like this. The expansion starts off very slow but gradually accelerates over time until the universe no longer exists for all intents and purposes. The higher the mass of the black hole, the longer it takes hawking radiation to shrink the black hole. Similarly, the higher the mass of the universe, the slower the universe's expansion is since more mass can resist the acceleration for longer. Could we be living in a black hole where hawking radiation is manifesting in our black hole universe as the accelerating expansion of the universe?
@@fooferutter3001 are they growing though? Couldn't you just say they are going from infinitely compressed to their lowest energy state? And if a Black Hole is a 4D object and we are measuring a 3D space, 3D space can grow infinitely until the 4th dimensional volume can reach 0. For example. Take a cube, and stretch its length and width to infinity, but while you scale L and W, you decrease H. You end up with a plane, you go from a cube with volume to a plane with volume. Where the object has effectively shrunk out of an entire dimension, but has remained the same size overall.
Hey, let's assume the Universe is infinite. Now consider the fundamental constants of nature. Are they really constant everywhere? Maybe they "drift" over distance? Not enough to be noticeable to us in our tiny area of observable universe.
Yes in fact everything outside our black hole would be massive in comparison to us because when you enter a black hole it breaks you down to smaller bits then atoms itself. Meaning a dust mite on our planet could be in fact as large as a lightyear in length in that universe while we would be billions of light-years in length if we somehow ended up our size in that universe.
12:15 “what’s on the outside” The “multiverse” that everyone seems to think exists… Outside could be another version of us where outside of their universe is just another version of us again so on and so forth
I've always wanted to ask this: if time slows down in proximity of a black hole to the point of stopping inside of it, how does a black hole have the time to form? Wouldn't time be so slow inside of the forming black hole that it would take more time for it to form than the age of the universe? I hope I phrased the question decently, thanks a lot for the good content you provide :))
It doesn't have time to form. Hawking radiation dissolves the black hole before it has time to complete its collapse. The universe will be a void of massless particles separated from each other with a cosmological event horizon before the black hole even has time to contract 1% more than it already has since the instant it appeared completely dark to us. I have yet to see anyone address this, by the way, and I've been watching these kinds of videos for years.
@@santopadre7284 Remember that the singularity is a consequence of General Relativity, predicting what should be at the centre of the a black hole. However, we can not *observe* what lies inside a black hole. What's inside it actually doesn't matter. All we can see is the event horizon. So, from our perspective, all the matter that formed the black hole never crossed the EH, and is frozen at the EH; but mathematically, we can not observe what happens at the EH, and it looks like all that matter were at the centre of the black hole.
The idea of infinitely nestled universes would look a lot like a fractal figure, since there are many black holes in our universe, so possibly many mini-univereses, and they would possibly have the same, and so on (and of course the inverse as well, our universe could be a single black hole in a bigger universe with many other black holes)
@No_Name I don't see why. It seems entirely arrogant to assume that all of existence ever revolved around us. Our existence was only ever as important as we decided it was, and as far as I'm concerned, it is completely irreplaceable and of the utmost importance.
@No_Name 1st you don't actually need to hold that thought. 2nd you can always asked what's even bigger and even smaller. By the fact that a scientific theory must be falsifiable, it is implied that there can actually never be a final theory. 3rd Science is limited, ultimately build on axioms, nothing more than assumptions. We can use that to our benefit and take it seriously to the degree explains the world but not necessarily take philosophical interpretations too seriously. Like meaning, consciousness. Why is there something rather than nothing. Science will never answer these kinds of questions. So you don't have to take it as an authority where it doesn't have authority.
A fractal set of universes is a cool idea. I'm guessing we probably won't discover the origin of the universe conclusively for many lifetimes, if at all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying.
Not just "inside" - "is": The sensory observation ("detection"; "measurement"; as you prefer) of the "particle with a lot of energy -- or 'mass'" as such, is the conscious observer's focusing of the energy (the self-relative motion - or acceleration-flow-pulse -- of the otherwise scale-uniform "spacetime continuum" superfluid) necessary to manifest the "warp" in spacetime that is the "observation" of that 'particulate' spacetime behavioral "event". Sounds a little scary, and perhaps philosophically disorienting (at first), but the "material universe" as we 'perceive' (are "conscious" of) it is the purely dynamic self-fractalizing, 'activity' of a horn-toroidal geometry fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole") in/of an otherwise scale-uniform superfluid medium 'configuring' itself into a 'simulation' (thus the 'small' scale "uncertainty principle" lack of definition/distinction between 'object [position; location])' and its 'motion [momentum]'), if you will, of a self-aware self-organizing network of discrete spatially distributed 'particulate' I/O devices. The next question is, what are we "humans", as product-participants in that endeavor, going to do with this newly acquired "information" -- i.e. this "linguistically encoded self-map" -- now that we have it? RECALL and CONSIDER: The combination of only two specific acceleration-pulse amounts (e.g. "0" and "1", if you will) within (i.e. or as definitive of) a specific increment of time -- e.g. as the self-regulated motion of a single 'substance' -- provides a sufficient basis for information [as intelligently coded signal] processing.
Why can’t we assume geodesics are simply distorted due to extreme gravity beyond the event horizon? They could continue infinitely depending where or if a black hole has an end.
@@xplorethings you said parallel lines meet at infinity. They don’t. And in non Euclidean space, there are no parallel lines, so I don’t get what you’re trying to say.
Me to. My top reason for thinking so was not addressed: It makes up not the center of... well.. everything. It makes our universe not special. Every black hole is an opportunity for another universe that might be right for life someplace.
yeah it seems like the only way things could be, other than the other ways things could be, of which there are many. there's no other possibility besides all the other possibilities!
We could be inside a black hole. We could never perceive ourselves entering a black hole because gravity warps time. From the outside looking in we would be spaghettified instantly, but from our own perspective we would simply orbit the event horizon forever and never get close to it. The entire universe could have already been destroyed eons ago but we can never perceive it.
Okay...the thing about black holes is that they're anything but black, and they don't reveal what goes on inside, aside from the whole seven minutes. As for the spaghettification, that occurs when the aperture, otherwise known as the event horizon, is too small for the object attempting to fit inside; if we're already inside the black hole, then the outside universe doesn't have to know, and information needs to be sorted somehow. I'll watch the video later.
Eternity and time are as different as night and day. Eternity has no time and is before time ever was, and is still before time ever was or without time. You can have a conscious eternity, or an unconscious eternity as would be the case at the bottom of the throat in the singularity, and yes you would be spaghettified no matter how big the aperture is or was. Read eternal terror/death.
@@mikeettinger7132 I agree about eternity so I changed my wording to make more sense. And my theory about different perceptions of time actually comes from Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the TV documentary "Cosmos". Gravity warps time and space so our perceptions of time are different based on gravitational pull.
Has anyone ever calculated the schwarschild radius for all the known matter in the observable universe? If our universe is smaller than that figure, then we are definitely living inside a black hole.
The reason why this calculation seems so miraculous is because the universe is just barely beyond the threshold of not recollapsing. You would get "we're in a black hole" if the universe's expansion eventually would reverse and cause collapse, which of course must make a black hole.
So could it be possible that a black hole collects everything it can and when it collapses to our view, on the other side of the black hole is another big bang... creating another universe in a neverending cycle of new universes.
I had though for years that the big bang is the other side of a truly spectacular black hole. What else could have the matter of trillions of galaxies and quintillions of stars and have that emanate out from a single point?
The only difference between our universe and a black hole singularity is that our universe contains space between the matter. It started off with no space between the matter, and now has lots of it, with more pouring in from everywhere at an exponential rate and apparently containing net energy even in the vacuum appearing before our very eyes. In our own universe a black hole appears to form in the same way. There's an initial formation of a singularity of infinite density from whatever created it, then the black hole just goes on it's merry way with space falling into it until it eventually evaporates. Presumably all the net energy of the vacuum quantum fields falling into it has to go somewhere too.
@@octofrostvapes587 There is an energy density spectrum, and OP is correctish. It’s easy to understand all that energy radiating as heat, during formation, life, and death, if you imagine black holes as ‘compression algorithms’, which do their best (by principle of least action) to ‘compute’ the entropy of themselves. I believe is already shown in computer science that black holes are best computers. The quantum info, as you may know gets entangled as it is compressed - which is the only way to reduce file size without info loss. Entangled however as well with the horizon’s radiation heat.
@@octofrostvapes587 QFT is your friend, from which all particles (inc virtual) exist. The universe we find ourselves in from which QFT emerges from is the humdinger.
It's "relative space" actually. Since gravity is the same as acceleration -- moving towards another object in a black hole at any given speed relative to objects outside the singularity, gets you closer to a relativistic speed -- it requires more energy and time. Your time is slowed due to all your motions being closer to relativity, and that means that SPACE locally is flat. As long as the distribution of density is the same, it's very likely the particles can appear to be just as space-filled as what is witnessed externally to a singularity. But, objects at a distance would appear to move faster, and could violate the speed of light. Astronomers have actually witnessed this. However, I don't think we are in a black hole, but that's a longer conversation.
The idea that our whole universe could exist inside a black hole is pretty amazing. It really reminds me of the meme about how life is formed from all of the elements created from a supernova, and ends with, “If you explode something hard enough, sometimes dust wakes up and thinks about itself”
i NEED THAT MEME RN
if you leave some organic matter in the goldilock zone of a star it'll start thinking about itself
eventually...
Dust didn't wake up. Dust compressed into a ball with goo and the goo woke up.
Are whole " visible " universe.. the rest is INFINITE!
Oh goodie, some existential dread before I go to bed!
You're welcome!
sweet dreams
Hey that rhymes! 😀
Bars 🔥
😂
To me, the most incredible thing about this is that people who study this subject can walk around freely without their brains exploding.
What a confusing subject.
It just feels like standing in a mirror surrounded by mirrors
Not really. It all makes sense if you truly understand geodesics, because that is the basis of all the theories Matt is referencing . I will admit it requires a good imagination tho
Thats because there is a thin lining of coffee between their brains and their skull, which cushions the impact of explosive thoughts, which keeps their cranium intact.
Their heads explode on this side of the black hole event horizon then reforms on the white hole side.
Very few know that Einstein was pacifist and his boss in Germany was a creator of the first chemical weapon. Einstein backed Schrodinger's work on event horizon only to get him out from WWI trenches where he wrote his equation (though Einstein told himself that it was just math model having no reality). Recently Vivian Robinson, co-inventor of electronic microscopes, pin pointed up to the line Schrodinger's math mistake. If you like such stuff read more in Bob Lazar Cutting Edge.
So wouldn't this be a new way to think of multi-universal theory? Because it would mean, at least in theory, that there's potentially a greater/outer universe that spawns black holes that contain nested universes within it. Or it would mean we exist in a fractal reality where instead of turtles it's black holes all the way up and down.
I think it maybe s hyperlink universe series like Internet rather than a nested or fractal universe series.
@@simoncline255fractal because potentially it’s infinite
I just commented something almost identical on another video. That’s exactly what I think in my very limited capacity as a scientist lolol
@@Sporeboy87 no fractal because it repeats itself at high levels of resolution. Like a square inside a square inside a square. As the resolution increases or you go "deeper" there are more iterations of the thing at different scales.
The thing about that though, is that the surface area of a fractal is infinite if you iterate it an infinite amount of times.
"Its turtles all the way down" was exactly my thought as this video wrapped up, lol
If a black hole is pulling in spacetime, then from the inside, wouldn't it appear to be gaining spacetime, and therefore appear to be expanding?
No.a black holes is in the fabric of spacetime, quite strange object that man will never comprehend,never would know what's goes on insides a black
I love how both of the first replies to this comment are like “NO.”
It’s a great question. It’s entirely possible.
It could be. If there exist pockets inside of event horizons; and the variables of size, intensity of collapse/expansion.... we may very well be the current "too substantive" to be squashed out of existence instantly.
In other words, gravity is the illusion that mass bends time, when it could just be: we are inside of an event horizon that is failing miserably (currently) to squash us out of existence, because we haven't dissipated enough yet
It's about time, so yes!
@@Bikewithlove But you're the second, so there's only one.
Just wanted to say, I'm 70, and started speculating a decade ago the analogies between the collapsing space inside a black hole, and the steadily expanding space-time universe in which we live. I've not known who or how to ask, but I'm so happy to hear it articulated. Now I can die in peace, knowing that speculation is in good hands. Thank You Matt.
It’s amazing how so many of us stumble upon theories that are later developed by people who actually study the science of that subject. I posit there’s a large number of average people out there that are closer to reality with their theories than they realize.
@@d.j.wattson4804 true
Time is just a beginning greater things still too come my friend
lmao
You are awesome Bruce :)
The deeper you dig, the more you realize that nobody has a fckng clue.
Then you realize it's not about the answer. It's about how you have changed (your understanding and knowledge) while looking for the answer. The existence itself is always there beckoning you to take another leap and go on another incredible journey...through SPACETIME. 😁😁😁
Black holes and the entire universe and anything and everything about these subjects are actually some of my very very very extreme favorite subjects of all time.
Oh that's fascinating.
So, this video discusses the possibility of our universe being inside a black hole. I've also seen something about our universe possibly being on a 3D event horizon of a black hole in a 4D universe. I don't know if there's enough there for an episode, but it would be cool for Matt to discuss it.
Exactly, everyone keeps suggesting there is a 1:1 correspondence here between event horizons and cosmological ones, but the issue of dimensionality is not discussed.
I think they’ve already made one. Holographic universe I think.
At this point, there's kind of no question that there are 4 or more spacial dimensions. The question is why we can't perceive more than 3. But what is really cool is that, if someone or something was able to live outside our 3D space, they'd likely see through time, i.e. see "past"/"present"/"future". Of course that brings up whether things are pre-determined or if we can influence the future, and how much we can influence the future, but it's a really cool thought experiment.
@@Lord_and_Savior_Gay_Jesus We don't know that it started from a single point. It could be infinite in size and was simply much denser than it is now.
@@gab.lab.martins Is there any evidence that extra spacial dimensions exist other than being an artifact of mathematics?
Thinking about our existence is crazy as it is .. thinking about the universe’s existence is just next level mind blowing craziness
We are the universe. So we literally are the universe being conscious of itself.
@@r.a.l.p.h Or so you one of those people, everyone is just atoms and molecules huh? So if someone takes a life it means nothing because they're just rearranging the atoms right?
@@Ikhlashasib10 nobody said that lol
@@Ikhlashasib10 does life really need a meaning?
@@JVCA44 Lol, are you really this illogical mate? Every thing in your body has a purpose, everything in the world has a purpose, everything in the universe has a purpose but you? No, you have none and life and everything that exist is just meaningless 🤦♂, bro, well why do anything? why go to work, why do good? why go to school? why do anything if it's all meaningless?
Just reading these comments, I feel so humbled and appreciative of all our scientists and space enthusiasts. I have little knowledge beyond astronomy 101, so I basically have no idea what everyone is talking about…but I want to learn!
Well son soon you'll start getting hair in funny places , and you're gonna start thinking about girls 😆😆😆😆 then you'll realize all hoe's black , white whatever they're pretty much the same and you'll love em all .😆🤟🏼🤟🏼
Same
The hole thing is quite confusing....lol
@@underthetornado I think we are in a blackhole universe which is inside another blackhole universe inside another black hole universe inside another ....... And so on.
@@underthetornado XD
I like this idea because if true, it also answers the multiverse question. There are lots of black holes and therefore lots of little universes absolutely everywhere. And they could contain their own infinity of black holes. It all makes sense.
But then there is no end to it ? It's just black holes inside black holes inside black holes ?
It doesn't really make sense
@@somethinsomethin7216
I know this is a terrible argument/response but if IF its true...the truth doesnt care if you dont understand it/if it doesnt make sense to you...
@@Bella-vt7ol you are right anything is possible in the realm of probability. But what is reasonable?
It is insane, to think that we are very very very lucky, to have a universe that caters to life existing, but not only that, but life with consciousness. From a bottom-up perspective it is insane how we got here from natural means, from simplicity all the way to complexity of consciousness.
Or the other hypothesis is there already is an eternal transcendent consciousness that created a universe with specific conditions to host life with consciousness. So more of a top-bottom approach
@@somethinsomethin7216It does and it doesn't. I think the hardest part to get your head around is that space and time might not be limited in scale in the way we understand and observe it. That a universe might be able to contain infinite universes within itself equally if not larger than itself. We think of space and time in it's physically observable state from our own perspective of 4 dimensional space and time.
I'm really glad you mention the infinite nesting at the end! It was bugging me the whole time. If the black hole contains black holes, well, then unless the one we are in is unique and the ones inside it are different, it means universes are fractal.
which is actually one of the things that really speaks for this idear. fractals show up in math all the time, and all over the place in nature. fractals is the most common thing in existence.
But my min is breaking just trying to question what would be weirdest, a universe that has a clear start/end or a never ending one.
but Infinity is for me way more understandable than true nothing. tho also am pretty sure true nothing and Infinity is the same thing.
Often people against science say: "but the universe could not come form nothing" and it kind of baffles me that so many people are cocky enough to believe they have any clue what true nothing can and cant do.
People might think they have a grasp of what "having nothing" means but no, no one has ever had nothing, theres always something. to even make something that gets close to what true nothing is has yet to be achieved.
We have invited 0 but honestly 0 is such a bug in math, like the fact we dont know how to calculate 1 divide by 0 seems to me to point at the fact that 0 is not a real number just like infinity is not a real number but a concept.
@@MouseGoat
Really enjoyed reading your comment, I hope i can add some more fuel to your fire.
So before I get into it, vsauce has a video on infinity that's really good. Talks about infinite sets. Secondly, most scientists would agree this universe has a clear start but no clear end.
Now, to get right into your comment. Our understanding of the big bang goes back to fractions of a second after the universe began, but not all the way. There is this little period at the very beginning that we can't really account for. Now, our equations tell us that this beginning was infinitely small and dense, like the singularity at the centre of a black hole. This doesn't mean it was - usually divide by zero stuff or infinities popping up mean the maths is no good, rather than a literal description of reality. Inflation is the part of the big bang that people like roger penrose take issue with. There isn't really any evidence to suggest we came from nothing, it's just a natural assumption that if we came from something very, very small, then that must have come from something smaller and so on til you reach 0. But, as zenos put forward in ancient grecian times, you can never slice down to actual 0!
yes. although it may be more meaningful to say that fractals exhibit many of the properties that tend to be present in sufficiently complex and interrelated systems, such as our universe. I'm of 2 minds, as fractals are mathematical and the universe physical, it's difficult to say which is a category of the other.
those of us who would like to emphatically thumbs up this video several times, and who take infinity seriously, should form a social group of some sort. I would very much like to have many conversations on such things.
@@MouseGoat yah nothing doesn't exist because by definition it's nothing. once you have an idea of something, like the idea of nothing, you have something. I think this causally and statistically means that there should be either :
A: an infinite collection of all possible combinations of all possible things, which would inevitably stretch beyond our current definition of what is possible or
B: an arbitrary (and statistically speaking very large in relation to our observations) set of possible things, that we should never assume terminates just beyond our understanding.
these things may be functionally indistinguishable from the perspective of everything in existence.
thoughts?
Fun fact, black holes get less dense without limit the bigger they are, because they have a radius r = (2G/c^2) * M directly proportional to their mass. For example, a black hole with the mass of our universe would have a Schwarzschild radius about the size of our universe and a density about the density of our universe.
@@Conquerer128_1 Is this supposed to be an insult? On this channel?
@@assainisateur we’re all nerds in our own ways.
The universe is black so…
@@Conquerer128_1 BE NICE TO PEOPLE
did you mean "observable at this time period universe"?
if the universe were inside a black hole would we be able to detect matter (or energy) leaking out due to hawking radiation? what would the shrinking of the black hole look like from inside our universe that is in the black hole?
Accelerating inflation?
That's what I'd like to know. I'm assuming it would be energy leaving the system, so it would look like a negative energy with the daughter universe, and that could make the theory falsifiable. However, these video have taught me that I know nothing about physics!
Not like I have any real idea, but perhaps it is happening so slowly we have no way of detecting it.
It wouldn't be visible at all to us, since everything stops for infinity at the event horizon, from outside the event horizon. So we would never see anything
@@jogleby I think that the "inside a black hole" argument requires the "black hole = white hole" assumption he mentions at the end, in which case Hawking radiation is balanced by cosmic background radiation absorption.
So probably the answer is that for it to be possible that we're inside a black hole, then there is nothing to detect as total energy stays constant.
I’ve always wondered about this. Mostly because of the theories behind the Big Bang. I always thought that maybe that’s what happens inside a black hole.
Matt, you started me on this journey 4 years ago. I couldn't believe that pie chart showing that we understood less than 5% of the universe. This one is fantastic. Putting some science into my speculations about the role of black holes in the formation of the universe 👍
I’ve been watching you for years now. Honest criticism, you’ve become WAYYY better at talking to the camera in the last few years… love your videos now! Good job dude!!
this is not criticism. wtf lmfao
This is exactly the way I imagine our Multi-verse looks like. The fractal structure of never-ending hard to put in words beatiful infinite reality we're living in.
When you use the term "the universe" what exactly do you mean or what exactly are you trying to convey when you use that term?
Your problem and it is a very real problem, is conceptual and the fact that you cannot see that demonstrates what your problem is
@@vhawk1951kl I said "multi-verse" or "reality", I didn't say universe. For me "a universe" is just another iteration of a never-ending process. Can I describe that process (fractal multi-verse)? I could describe how I imagine it, but not in the youtube comments section. Can I "demonstrate it?" No. And most likely no one will. Ever. Because it's physically impossible to experiment that.
@@tudordima3468 exactly, that's how I think it too. You can somehow and I repeat somehow imagine it inside your brain. But, explaining it with words is near impossible.
Too bad there is not a shred of proof. You are a man of great faith to believe in an infinite amount of something. I have seen no evidence of any physical object being infinite.
@@harrkev is space even physical tho? It's space, coz it is space.
Wonderful to see we haven't run out of theories yet.
This idea just makes me picture the ending of the first Men in Black movie where a (our?) galaxy was contained inside a marble in a game being played by larger beings.
I think about this kinda thing all the time. Like what if our entire universe and existence is just the equivalent of an atom in an infinitely larger universe which we'd never be able to see because the scaling is so great we wouldnt be able to decipher or even comprehend its existence
So glad I'm not the only one with these crazy thoughts either!
My version is that what we call our universe is just one cell in a body in an infinitely large (from our perspective) universe. Likewise, one atom in our existence is an entire infinitely small universe to someone else... and so forth, in both directions (larger and smaller).
Is this what physicists mean when they talk about other dimensions? 🤷🏼♀️
What if we're in only the most recent big bang? Just as galaxies crash into each other and black holes grow and swallow everything. What if two black holes grow so large and come together, boom,big bang. A cycle that repeats every 100 ish billion years give or take. Just a thought for when you can't sleep ... sorry.
; 》
@@mamoros56 I like to think a little darker, that the earth is a "damaged cell" and it's like humans will cause issues to the larger being if we spread out into the universe. Just shower thoughts
@@mamoros56 and we are cancer eating away at the cell and trying to spread to other planets and in time spread to other universes destroying every planet we move to by just simply living.
Cosmology seems like a path straight into madness, and I'm enjoying every second of it because I'm nowhere near smart enough to understand it all.
Taking the time and effort, and having a good tutor, can help us understand it.
At that point, after attaining better understanding, I think the surprising thing will be that it's *still* a straight path into madness.
Or a path to enlightenment. Your choice
@@useyourbrain6937 Maybe they're not so different, when seen by others from the outside :D
I think it's plausible, but then, when we've created micro black holes with the LHC, it's also plausible that inside that micro black hole existed a micro universe that experienced the big bang, infinite time, and the delusion of all existence, in what was a fraction of a second for us.
Have we actually created micro black holes? I didn’t think we had.
Good point 🙃
But there were no black holes created in Cern.
Micro black holes have never been created nor detected. Because they don't even exist
@@FVLMEN true, though Theories confirm them, there is yet no schwarzschild metric physically possible at this subatomic scales
This idea just makes sense to me, I've always had a gut feeling that reality is a fractal. And being inside a black hole makes sense
Tell Rocco Siffredi about it.
i mean, it would certainly explain why space is "black" lol
I like black holes. The ones in space too.
Huge thanks to Matt and the whole team behind PBS Space Time! This is one of my favorite channels❤️
That’s honestly very terrifying and beautiful at the same time. The amount of time we have been in a black hole could mean we live in a much bigger universe with possibly infinite time. I don’t know how people carrying on their lives with a puzzle like this.
It could even be like those Russian babushka dolls! Black holes inside of black holes inside of black holes!😂
You know something else: we probably existed and will exist infinite times if times is infinite. Existing here for the first and last time, a incredible small fraction of infinite, is just not realistic
@@dieterrosswag933 If you define "us" as life then you are probably correct. If you define it as separate individuals with memories and identities, I doubt it. We are matter and have a finite time.
@@kenshinsan12 yes. When we pass away any memory is gone... probably. But will be born again. Where, who, when...no one knows
@@dieterrosswag933if the universe is infinite, then why wouldn't consciousness be? You just relocate but retain your memory
I love the explanation you gave in the beginning that space is flowing like a river. Thank you for mixing it up and sharing your interpretation of the science and not copy and pasting whats already been done. Keep it up.
I wonder if black holes are creation points of new universes. As far as we know big bang came to be from extremely hot and dense point, so since the center of a black hole is also so dense that it’s volume is almost zero, maybe black holes just gather matter to the point it reaches critical mass and expands to a new universe
But they don't expand , and it implies to me that there is no multiverse all the "universes" exist together in the same realm and rules
DAMN
@@devdecker7812They do expand. Super massive blackholes.
@@devdecker7812take that L
Seems logical!! Which, as einstein proved, the universe does follow logical rules....e=mc^2
Man! What an amazing time we live in! That we can explore the universe with such technology and ponder the deepest structure of the universe with such great minds is so exhilarating and exciting!
Thank you professor for spending so much of your time bringing us hard won knowledge and go
And thank you for bringing your obvious love and dedication to knowledge to us for all these years! Thank you sir, thank you!
ion think this dude a professor bro.
Hes just a grad student they prolly hired to fw this stuff
“Time”, yes. Amazing indeed.
@honkhonk8009 He most definitely is...
"Matthew John O'Dowd is an Australian astrophysicist. He is an associate professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College of the City University of New York and writer and host of PBS Space Time on RUclips."
I loved watching PBS space related videos with my late grandpa. I first found out about black holes when I was six. I wasn't scared, just fascinated.
Every since I was a child, I've been fascinated with the idea that all things are within other things. Sparked entirely from a visual comparison based on an extreme zoom in of a human eye, and an extreme zoom out of galactic images; such as nebula clouds. While universes within atoms seems rather outlandish, I do like the idea still. But I am continually fascinated with the comparisons between a blackhole singularity and the singularity at the beginning of our universe. Perhaps each blackhole is actually a child birthed from our universe, just as we were born as one. Each one experiencing their own form of natural selection in ways we could only speculate upon. Well, I at least like the idea of it.
Exactly
Only the biggest most powerful black hole in a single universe inevitably wins as the smaller ones are also absorbed.
Ok.....that just mind f**ked me lmao. Gonna have me thinking of that all day now 😆😂😅
are you talking about fractals in particular?
Do you not understand that the very term universes is an oxymoron?
This has become my favorite space theory of all time, first because it would kinda make sense, and if proved true, it would answer so many questions while also opening the way to a whole new series of thoughts and discussion on what's out there, beyond our bounded universe.
Who does the audio engineering? I've always admired their work.
It's PBS, not some homebody youtuber...they have resources as good as any media operation in the world
@@davidparadis490 That a person gets paid for a job doesn't necessarily mean admiration for said job (if it is done well) isn't in order.
@@davidparadis490 god I hate homebodies
@@davidparadis490 An individual or group of individuals still have to mix the audio, and they still need the skill to do it well. It is fine to admire their work.
@@DemonKyle thanks, what strange reactions to my comment. Just because it's PBS doesn't mean there aren't humans doing the work. Wtf?
If this is true, that means black holes could contains universes like ours, which also could contain black holes which also could contain universes, etc.
Perhaps we could be "stucked" between the infinite small and the infinite big, time flowing differently for everyone, like 1 sec for us is 10 000 years in a black holes.
I dont think so. Matter at an atomic level cannot be reduced below that size, so in my opinion at the center of every black hole is a mass infinitely dense rather than a space, because atoms are the bare minimum, at some point the "universe in a black hole's planets" would be smaller than an atom which isn't possible.
@@HibekiGuy The idea could be that the laws of physics and constants are adjusted based on the black hole's formation, so the minimum size of the atom could be much smaller in the black hole.
@@HibekiGuy I mean, who knows what the laws of physics are in other universes. They could be completely different. But it’s a moot point really because I doubt we could ever know
nope black hole is singularity object.. no time flow.. there time and matter become one.. a energy mix + information dataset..
So, size is indefinite?..
I’m just a regular guy but I’ve always had strange ideas since I was a child. And as am a grown man now it strikes me that a lot of what I think about the universe without having any real knowledge is shared by many scientists and other people.
I guess that’s INSTINCT as we are part of this universe.
I truly do wonder if our universe is circular and spacetime simply wraps around to where you'd wind back up at these same spot traveling in any straight 1D direction OR..... Is the universe flat and has a folding edge or possibly carries on forever on a infinite plane... Guess the world will never know :/
Same here bro. 🤜🤛
Science-Watch-Suggesss - want some?
Your ideas don't occur in a vacuum and it's not surprising that many people will be led by observation to similar conclusions. It's not "instinct", it's pattern recognition. Now being able to argue your ideas logically, that's the next step and that's how science works.
First time watching. I saw you on Star Talk and figured I'd check it out.
Now I need to add Space Time to my playlist. Great video!
i wish I could rewatch every episode from scratch now, you're in for such a treat! The earliest episodes are a bit rougher production but still brilliantly written
Question: We've discussed that matter or "information" does not change in any way once it crosses the event horizon of a black hole. In a sense, it is frozen in time never to be altered. If in fact we are in a black hole could the Microwave Background Radiation be this matter or "information" that is forever frozen on the surface of the black hole that contains the entirety of our universe, seeing as it never changes?
"In a sense, it is frozen in time never to be altered." Only for the beholder outside, not inside.
What Matthias said: the information cannot be altered from outside the event horizon once it crosses into the black hole. It could, however, change within by another force
Anyway... the universe is constantly changing
I thought a blackhole was when a star goes supernova and collapses on itself, implodes and then explodes?
We are inside a star that went supernova? what? that doesn't make any sense
@@ajcook7777 Generally speaking that describes a stellar origin black hole yes - but there is speculation that not all black holes are formed through this process.
At the end of the day a black hole is merely a celestial object of such huge mass that its gravity allows nothing to escape - not even light/em waves once it reaches the event horizon.
For all we know the net gravitational effect of large clusters of galaxies actually causes much the same effect as a black hole, and we simply cannot view it from within.
"Biocosm" has been on my reading list for a while. In the book, it supposedly proposes a "biological" evolutionary model of the cosmos where successful universes create more black holes, which are used to simulate universes with slightly different properties. I like the idea of advanced civilizations figuring out how to use black holes as giant universe simulators to do incredibly complex computations with, and some of those simulated universes go on to create more simulated universes, and maybe complex life gets more and more abundant with each generation.
WoW! What a fascinating thought... what IF. Hmmm... peace!
Sounds like the cosmological natural selection theory
I find it very disturbing with the idea that there are advanced beings that's okay with creating all these f'up realities... for no matter what reason...
@@Napoleonic_S how do you know this to be true? Just asking...
@@Napoleonic_Sif you think about it we can kill ants without thinking about it just how these beings if they're real create realities without a second thought
I actually had this very question running through my head for a few days. My problem is I'm in no way smart enough to get much further than that. Thank you for making this so well timed
Leonard Susskind has free lectures about this very subject....free on YT..have fun!!
@@bluntedvegas702 I ask around cause why not:
Scientific Watch-Suggests, wnat some of those?
Not smart enough or not enough time to learn the math needed? The fact that you spend time contemplating subjects like this suggests to me that it is the latter... ;)
Wow, what an interesting episode! Thanks everyone who made this!
You cannot escape a black hole, just like you cannot escape our sponsor: raid shadow legends.
I've been waiting for this video for so freakin long.
It's exactly what I've thought since learning how black holes work, especially the space/time flip that is supposed to happen when you cross the event horizon. It makes perfect sense that the time of infinite density being the big bang.
We were just assuming the direction of the flow of time was the same inside a black hole instead of it being mirrored.
Guess the whole "white hole" thing is just what another black hole looks like after you get to the other side.
Honestly, it makes perfect sense. The mind blowing question is "are there infinite black/white holes in an infinite hierarchy or are there an origin universe where all universes and sub-universes are in?"
@@ildar5184 that we create in the future and send to the past through a man made white hole, because we have never seen one and would have even crazier properties than a black hole 🤷♂️
That's the fun thing about infinite series even if there's a hierarchy you can't tell it imagine standing inside a pair of parabolic mirrors where space time would be bent around you in all ways and you wouldn't be able to make sense of where the start or the end of anything is that's infinite universe is nested within each other they can contain maximum fidelity over and over again and you would never be able to tell the difference because if you look up your ceiling would just Encompass down into your floor and become your floor to become your ceiling and so on and so forth so there is no need for an end or a beginning
@@averylawton5802 You just explained my last acid trip haha
I’ve thought about this for years and I’m glad to find I’m not the only one.
White holes don't exist
"Your videos always leave me in awe and eager to learn more about the mysteries of the universe. Thank you for fueling my curiosity.
"
If there was a black hole of this size, I would wonder how big the actual universe is. I also wonder what could make a black hole of that size?
This encompasses what gets me thrilled about your work so well. Great job tying in so many ideas and presenting it in a way that lets the viewer hypothesize before you empirically lead us through. These ideas are a large part of what makes physics and science in general so interesting to people. In a world where it’s easy to get lost in the day to day scope of our lives, you and others who do this work make a thrilling testament as to how wild the ‘bigger’ picture might be and how fun it can be to think about.
Couldn't agree more.... Thank you for speaking to what my mind was also thinking.
I can't be the only one who as a college physics student I thought that each singularity at the center of a black hole might start of a universe inside of it. It's such an obvious conclusion to come to. Very cool to see that idea getting some actual weight behind it in the scientific community. (dang, that was almost 20 years ago now.. I'm old af)
Same here by just doing some Google research on NASA websites etc
To me it would make sense that the Big bang is what happens when a black hole is formed or entered and the Big crush would be when we meet the singularity
'old af' and not doing much 'professional' physics at a guess...
@@hales6547 that and a thousand other random stories that have no proof... but I suppose monkey's typing forever will eventually write Shakespeare's complete works. Maybe you are right and you will find out at the end of time, more likely you need to do something useful now.
Same here.
It is definitely interesting, but what about matter and decay like he mentions? Are they just smaller universes or is string theory coming into play? If it wasn't for expansion and decay I would have thought that black holes will eventually all come together and become such a powerful entity so that it sucks everything back from the furthest reaches like in the cyclical universe shown in Futurama. I thought of that myself as well but didn't seem to work. The theories in this episode are amazing but still need explanation.
I concur it's a plausible theory. This is the stuff I love to ponder in the timeless space between wakefulness and sleep. Much more satisfying than infinite sheep 😊
whilst i suspect that there are some definitive physics saying that it isnt the case, ive always thought that blackholes all seed either into separate singularities (one for each universe), or all seed into one singularity which, when all the matter in a certain area/universe is captured, becomes so intensely compressed that it erupts into a big bang and then expansion- rinse and repeat.
Agreed this has been my assumption too. I believe black holes in our universe to be a big bang in another universe thus creating the multiverse.
Thats a pretty interesting thought fo sure, I would not discount it. Wish you could ask a Physicist this question so we could all hear an answer lol
The idea that all black holes lead to a single singularity is very wrong. The base requirements for a singularity is a point in space, and, as we all know, you cannot have two points in space equal each other. Else causality would break.
But each black hole having it's own separate big bang equivalent singularity is unprovable. So you can believe it if you want, no one can't prove you're wrong.
@@simonlockley-evans9349 Yeah but if you think about it that way the likely chance of our universe being the "original" universe quickly becomes very low.
@@cheese4840 Agreed 100% so low in fact as to be beyond the normal range of human understanding. We are talking extremely large numbers that the human mind finds difficult to comprehend.
The chances of being inside a black hole is low, but never zero.
Just about the same odds as being attacked by a cow.
@@pixelkat1819 actually those odds are very high 😐
@@pixelkat1819 my dad got charged at by a cow (not a bull) when he was hiking in France. The cows horn sliced into his leg and had to get a huge amount of stitches on his upper thigh.
I'm pretty sure my first apartment qualified.
@@WS3711
Not necessarily true.
There are provably conditions that are unprovable yet true.
the idea of a nested universe makes so much more sense to me than the idea of a multiverse. there are so many parallels between earth scale and the cosmological scale, universes creating more universes just seems to fit the general parallel better.
there is also the factor of our universe expanding inexplicably - what if that expansion is powered by the constant feed of matter and space time into a black hole? or what if the collapsing of the initial star speeds up over time, explaining the acceleration of universal expansion? idkkkk it's all theory and questions i have but it's so interesting to think about!
It's fractal all the way down.
And up. And sideways.
That means the CMB is in part hawking radiation.
I beleive multivariate might still be possible even on top of this theory. Nothing is set in stone on how things happen there is no destiny as we all have free will in our choices. In another version of reality there are infinite ways things could've happened maybe an alternate you did something slightly different today. There isn't a way to prove this theory unless we can control time itself maybe even invent a device to jump to different universe inside different black holes.
I don’t see any reason why a nesting universe and a multiverse cannot coexist simultaneously…
@@ghosthunter0404 I’m not really sure that multiple diffferent universes of our realities is how the multiverse really works….I kinda think it’s being used as a misnomer for the infinite multidimensional existence of the universe itself, as well as ourselves
This is exactly what I've been speculating about for the last couple of years!
Could the direction of time that we experience as "forward" actually be backward to someone observing from outside our universe/black hole? In that case, all of the matter that to us looks like is expanding away from us would actually be falling into our black hole if we were to watch from outside it, I'm probably wrong but to me this would seem to help explain why the big bang was a moment of extremely unlikely low entropy, since in that view the collapsing of the universe would be inevitable, and that period of low entropy is what caused our perception of times direction to flip (maybe?), and the collapsing of the universe into the big bang may be what it looks like from the inside of a black hole as it radiates and shrinks due to hawking radiation
Maybe that's why I have this feeling that I've already died and that I am just re-experiencing my life as it once was.
I had a similar thought. A black hole is a singularity in space - the big bang is a singularity in time. Reminds me of penrose diagrams.
@@LochyP same, I kept thinking throughout the video about how space and time "swap places" inside a black hole
Yes
Entropy is not symetric.
I remember a book by Isaac Asimove, forget the title but I think it was discussing if we were alone In the universe. One of his equations worked out the density of a theorised black hole with the mass of the known universe. The answer came out to pretty much the density of matter around us anyway. Leading him to leave the question hanging, are we in a black hole?
Who else is being left wanting this masterpiece to become an actual series on traditional TV through our local PBS affiliates?
I ask around cause why not:
Scientific Watch-Suggests, wnat some of those?
Would be great for those who watch them in school. Personally, I am comfortable getting my head around the snippets on this channel for now.
TV is so 20th century... Everyone can see it here so why also on "tv"?
@@amlord3826 This "place" has also TV, YT is a form of TV.
A beautiful theory 🫶 presented by a very talented young man 🍀 Thank you for sharing your work with everyone ♾️
Could being inside a blackhole explain dark energy, as everything is being accelerated towards the singularity which because of the distortion of space-time inside a blackhole is actually located in all directions around you, so everything appears to be getting pulled away from you?
yea i have heard this somewhere before too. great thought!
*mind blown*
Woah
There is no evidence for the existence of dark energy, the same can be said for black holes.
Dark energy almost certainly doesn't exist since it has been shown that cosmological principal does not apply within our observable universe since the cosmological principal where it is assumed the universe is at some scale homogenous enough for the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric to be able to be applied to our observable universe depends on the assumption that the CMB dipole is purely kinematic in origin as any other dipole component being nonzero would eliminate the applicability of a scale of homogeneity where the FLRW metric could be applied within the observable universe.
In the 1980's an experimental test was devised which could unambiguously test the pure kinematic dipole assumption though this test needed millions of cosmologically distant sources which could be used to construct a dipole in the sky that can be compared to the CMB dipole.
If the dipoles match in magnitude and direction the CMB dipole is indeed kinematic however if they don't match in both magnitude and direction then the cosmological components to the CMB dipole are nonzero and thus sufficient to eliminate all models assuming the cosmological principal applying within the bounds of the observable universe.
The results of Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 ApJL 908 L51 using a final sample of 1.36 million quasars measured by catWISE reveal a dipole with more than twice the magnitude of the CMB which results in a 4.9 sigma discrepancy (only a 1 in 2 million chance of being a statistical fluke) from the CMB dipole so we can largely rule out the assumption and any model that depends on it if looking at the situation objectively.
Given that anisotropic cosmologies automatically produce the observed acceleration with anisotropic and inhomogeneous variation as had been largely demonstrated by work which doesn't implicitly assume the cosmological principal Occam's razor suggests there is no dark energy.
So, hear me out. If the Big Bang is essentially the singularity of a white hole that encompasses our universe, what if every black hole within our universe leads to a white hole, or in other terms another Big Bang singularity of an entirely different universe, essentially explaining the existence of an infinite multiverse. This would also mean that our universe is essentially the product of a white hole that correlates with a black hole from another universe as well. I know this is fairly different from the point being made in the video, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of an exponentially cyclical universe. Basically what I mean by that is that if you were to look at the smallest viewable particle of mass, and zoom out to an indefinite distance, eventually you would return to the same view of that particle, because the infinite nature of the universe isn't linear. The thought absolutely boggles my mind.
edit: Nvm, I continued watching, and that exact theory was actually mentioned in the video... man the study of space time is amazing.
Another edit: just realized this exponentially cyclical and infinite cycle I was trying to describe is called infinite nesting, and is also mentioned in the video 🤦♂️😅
🤯
I'm completely with you, in terms of the power and all-encompassing nature of cycles. I've been that way since I'd first really thought about Black Holes
no, white holes r just a theory, until I see proof I'll believe it
@@skill2019 I mean what I posited was also a theory, so I wasn’t implying otherwise. Either way man, all of this is essentially a theory. We have absolutely no clue what the function or effect of a black hole is, but we know they exist almost entirely due to mathematical data and our currently understood laws of nature, such as physics. Would you still deny the existence of black holes with that in mind? If your answer is yes, then this conversation should be moot to you. If you believe in the existence of black holes, or even the Big Bang, then maybe you should be more open to suspending disbelief in light of probable theories and assertions.
An infinite fractal
For me I gain comfort and a calm serenity that we are all on the inside of an event horizon. Would be interesting to see if we can create a 3 dimensional image/projection from a small part of the CMB!!
No. This literally makes zero sense. As an ACTUAL astro-physicist, this is just embarrassing. Science is real and it matters. Hence, it doesn't mean you can just whip up fantasy, make-belief, hodge-podge nonsense that bears zero basis on anything factual. What an absolute sham and disgrace to science. You should be ashamed.
I'm enjoying the little sentence at the end of the videos detailing Matt's adventures within spacetime and our universe, he's like a little space explorer coming back to Earth to teach us new things and drop existential crises on us and then skeddaddles off to go on another adventure again... I love it! It's very amusing to imagine XD
Question: Does overall entropy increase or decrease within the event horizon of a black hole?
I don't know, but I remember when this guy looked young. So I guess entropy increases within... if we are in a blackhole.
@THRAGG ABNER Only strong sedatives can help here.
@THRAGG ABNER ... I dont get it.
It decreases crossing the event horizon. Space becomes more compact and time slows down. Entropy is rate of change. An increase of entropy is the rate/speed of change. The arrow of time is merely a memory matrix.
There is a theoretical limit to an amount of entropy per square inch, as all particles become perfectly spread out while being as compact as possible. All black holes exist at this limit.
Because of this, when two black holes merge, the volumes of the two black holes prior does not equal the volume of the resulting black hole, but rather it is surface area that is conserved instead. This is because all the information of a black hole is encoded around its surface, and entropy cannot decrease but is already maximised.
Back in the 80's when I took ASTR 101, the professor had us work on the density of black holes. What would be the radius and density of a black hole if the mass of it were 1 kg, like what if you made a black hole by compressing something you could hold in your hand. Very tiny, very dense. What if it were the Earth? Still small, like a baseball if I recall, but less dense. The sun, larger, less dense. Keep adding mass, the radius is larger and the density is less. He then asked us to consider the theoretical density of the known universe. So it's always been in my head, the mass of the the universe, given that it would not need to be dense, could be a gigantic black hole, we live in, and have no idea what's outside. Update: What I mean by 'black hole' is what's inside the event horizon, not the mass singularity itself.
An you wasted all of that money studying unproven nonsense...get a refund
You basically studied CGI cartoons
Also, the density of all Black holes are the same, infinite. All that changes is the radius and the mass of the Black hole, but not the density.
@@ShapeDoppelganger Also the density of the Sheeple believing this nonsense is astounding
@@davidsheckler8417 Believing in what, that black holes exists? There's no other affirmation on this thread.
Imagine our entire observable universe being just a spec within a superverse
This episode more than any other has blown my mind.
When I was quite young, I proposed The Big Cheese model of the Universe: that the Universe at large was eternal, but inside every Black Hole, the Singularity appeared as if it were the Big Bang of a universe contained within the event horizon of that singularity.
Sometimes it’s the young minds who have the best ideas.
I had a very primitive model of special relativity that made sense to me in the third grade. I tied time dilation to the expansion of the universe, arguing that because the radius of the universe was larger in the future, something like centripetal force pushed faster objects slightly into the future.
That doesn't work, as it assumes an objective frame of reference, but it was simple enough that I could explain it to someone.
It's a shame black holes are just a theory. Call them Plasmoids.
I thought this many years ago as well, then later on the white hole theory was published, I think if a black hole has nothing else to absorb/eat eg outside of the event horizon could it possibly collapse on itself to the the singularity that then creates a Big Bang.
@@RenneDanjoule What are you talking about? Black Holes, at least until you get much beyond the event horizon, behave exactly as General Relativity predicts, and General Relativity has never failed a single prediction. We have observed objects that must be denser than any neutron star, and we have observed matter interacting with accretion disks. There is the recent famous "photograph" of a Black Hole, or more technically, the neighborhood around a Black Hole. We observe gravitational lensing.
Not a single astronomical observation contradicts the existence and behavior of black holes.
Do you even know what a plasmoid is, or does using the word make you feel smart?
used to think this when i was like 10, never knew this was a real topic of consideration
The geodesic logic is brilliant. I think it is a possibility. Hopefully there are experiments in the future that can confirm this.
This theory is so interesting, and actually, in a strange way, a more comforting thought than us being in a mysterious ever expanding "space". In fact, seems more logical than just a random "big bang" started everything from nothing.
Now imagine being able to travel into blackholes, it'd mean universe hoping.
Finally!! I thought I was alone ruminating with this idea! My theory goes: We live inside a black hole that is part of a universe with over 3 dimensions. The rip from one point of its inside into our 3 dimensional world was our big bang. The fabric of space/time inside these black holes can be ripped apart and explode into other dimensions by the enormous amount of energy/matter incoming from a parent universe, or the primordial multi dimensional universe.
I call these type of Massive Black Holes: Gargantuas.
If the universe was within a black/white hole, then wouldn't that explain away dark energy and the expansion of the universe as just being the result of gravity at a very large scale?
You can’t get inside a white hole. They push everything out and away
My theory is that gravity is the inverse of whatever force is expanding space-time. Otherwise all matter would be pulled apart from the stretching of space-time
@@Mster_J exactly why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate .
My teori is that there is no black matter and there is no black energy . The space is expanding because a singularity or a huge black hole , that strech the space
Close - Dark Energy becomes nothing more than the expansion of your containing black hole, which expands your surface area.
This is heavy stuff. -- I think all of this is worth taking "seriously" in the sense that many discoveries began with a guess or "crazy" idea that later turned out to be true. We make advancements and discoveries by asking questions, some times seemingly absurd ones. It's how we learn.
May i ask you a Thing?
None of these scientific facts are actually facts. You do know that right. It’s like saying you know what gravity is…
@@mikekull7183 I mean, yes and no?
No one claimed he knows everything about Gravity, so therefore no one has been objectively wrong.
And yeah, we kinda do know an awful lot about Gravity already;
it wasnt discovered last Monday.
@@loturzelrestaurant I was speaking in general, not so much about him. We don’t really ‘’know” what gravity is though, nobody does or is
Could a black hole form within a black hole?
Great video, first time viewer of your channel. Will be subscribing:)
One way to define a black hole is a region in which light can not pass to another defined region of space. It is cut off from that other region, as light can not pass between the two. Around our universe, in every direction, we observe a red shift that is proportional to distance of observed objects. Extrapolating, this means that at a great enough distance, light from those vastly distant objects will red shift to a frequency of zero and be undetectable to us by any means. So, this meets the criteria for us to exist inside a truly enormous, massive black hole. And we seem to be just fine trapped in here with all the observable universe to keep us company. But it may be an infinitesimal fraction of the universe outside its boundaries.
Hawking radiation means things going out of the event horizon which will never return. Which is what is happening to the cosmological horizon too because of expansion of the universe. Could the black hole shrinking relative to the universe be the same as universe expanding relative to the singularity?
Hawking radiation is not leaving the interior of the event horizon though. It's the result of virtual particle pairs splitting at the horizon such that one particle is outside and can escape the gravity but the other is inside and trapped. The radiation is the escaping particles, de-virtualized by their inability to rejoin their partner and annihilate.
Bear in mind that if the universe is inside a black hole, that black hole almost certainly doesn't have a real singularity - it'll likely be something more exotic, such as a 2d sphere, or a quantum fuzzball. A real singularity can't represent a universe - it doesn't have the complexity necessary to represent much of anything at all.
Wherever math indicates a singularity, it's a very strong bet that something rather more complex and interesting is going on there. Similar to the way that the speed of light never actually *stops* you from going faster, it just approaches an infinite asymptote and time starts to warp instead. Similarly you should never be able 'reach' a singularity, even if you can always get closer to it, something akin to the speed of light should be kicking in as you approach infinite density which prevents that outcome.
Thats the jist of it. If compression is put on matter to shrink inward on itself in all directions then it would simply appear that the universe is expanding in every direction.
Been waiting on this one for years. Ask a spaceman touched on it about 5 years ago too.
His answer was essentially so what? Its possible and how does it change anything?
I appreciate matt and his team's response much better.
@@Jesse_359 A mathematical singularity is just a 1d dot, and the real world is never that simple.
@@khatharrmalkavian3306 I heard that explanation for Hawking radiation too, but have also heard since then several times it is incorrect. There is a good Science Asylum video on it.
So could the expansion of the universe be explained by us residing in a white hole? Maybe the inflation of dark energy is just more space-time being added to our universe from our progenitor universe's black hole.
This is the same thing I’ve thought for some time. It explains why black holes defy our scientific laws. The next question would be where the matter from the donor universe came from. I’m rolling with there still has to be divine creation in there, but it’s wild to think about.
I _think_ the one part that wouldn't be accounted for may be the acceleration of spatial expansion, while white holes would typically have constant spatial expansion. But don't quote me on that.
Gravitational waves expand space time. Since " nothing" exists outside of the universe it is infinite by definition and always will be no matter how much it "expands".
@@saintandre5247 shoot man, with infinite timelines, universes and even dimensions... Its almost a choice of which one you choose to be true.
@@stephencorsaro954 there is nothing as gravity.. only mass acceleration.. my lord.. GITGUT!
I'm totally fine with this explanation. It gives me some sort of closure so I don't freak out every now and then :)
Question: How does this hypothesis account for dark energy and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe? If we say that the universe is similar to a time reversed Black hole shouldn't the flow of space towards the "outside" slow down instead of speeding up?
If you lived in a black hole, you'd look towards the event horizon and see matter accelerating faster as it got closer to it. Of course that wouldn't mean the the black hole was coming apart, just that matter was becoming energy and escaping at the boundary.
One problem with the whole notion of "dark energy" is that the No big crunch theorem proves that for any arbitrary initial conditions to the Einstein field equations, at least in the case of any initially expanding flat or open geometry spacetime noting that curved spacetime at sufficiently small scales looks flat, the only solutions that do not mathematically give self contradictory outputs are irreducibly nonlinear solutions where no maximum spatial volume can exist within any time slice since the off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never truly cancel out to be zero anywhere. (Note this is effectively a consequence of acceleration breaking time symmetry too). More importantly this says that all non self contradictory solutions show that for any arbitrary mass distribution while the over densities do allow the expansion of space to locally slow down the resulting underdensities created by the concentration of mass will *always* locally increase the rate of expansion such that the overall rate of acceleration always remains greater than zero globally.
In essence for mass to attract space elsewhere must expand at an accelerating rate such that the total spatial volume within any given time slice of spacetime is always greater than zero. As the number of possible outcomes for a given universe globally is countably finite this spatial volume constraint can then be redefined in terms of entropy revealing that this constraint for all solutions which do not reach self contradiction is in fact the second law of thermodynamics.
Since all other solutions produce self contradictory behaviors they are in essence unphysical solutions to the Einstein field equations which includes the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric unless spacetime is perfectly isotropic everywhere a.k.a. the linearizable FLRW metric is only physical if and only if spacetime is empty everywhere at all points in spacetime.
For more on the No big crunch theorem see Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology: Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022
The physical solutions to the general Einstein field equations always reproduce an observed net acceleration of spacetime eliminating the need for "dark energy" which can be seen as a 1st order correction term to force fit observations to the FLRW model. This solution also automatically reproduces the second law of thermodynamics as an inherit property of spacetime itself and automatically provides an origin for the arrow of time.
For the record the 2nd order correction term is the assumed purely kinematic CMB dipole which has been largely falsified to 4.9 sigma (only a 1 in 2 million chance of statistical fluke) as of Febuary 2021 See A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars cited
Nathan J. Secrest et al 2021 ApJL 908 L51 for the experimental test to falsify the pure kinematic dipole assumption.
The higher order correction terms are the cause of the "axis of evil" problem with modern cosmology and the systematic errors associated with force fitting a unphysical cosmological model naturally resolve the so called Hubble tension.
@@Bit-while_going When you say you would see matter accelerate towards the EH, are you talking about matter outside of the EH, or inside the EH?
“Looking” “back” towards the EH would be looking at the “past” for you since the time and space axis flips at the EH. The singularity isn’t at a particular spatial location relative to you. It is temporally in your future; inevitable. Likewise, the Event Horizon isn’t at a partial spatial location relative to you. It is temporally in your past. “Space” to you, would be the region encompassing everything at the same “time distance” from the Event Horizon/Singularity.
So, I would imagine that anything “outside” of the Event Horizon would send light “toward” you, but it would take a spiraling path towards you losing energy as it travels through the expanding spacetime of the black hole so that you would not be able to detect it by the time it reaches you. This would be analogous to the Cosmological Event Horizon that we understand. Just take “out” “toward the Cosmological Event Horizon” and re-map it onto a spiraling grid and you’ll get the same description as the inside of a Black Hole’s Event Horizon.
A lot of this stuff comes down to translating a vector space from one coordinate system to another. They all describe the same thing, but depending on the coordinate system (perspective), the results seem to be different. Like Einstein seeing the speed of light as the invariant while spacetime is variant even though spacetime was considered absolute prior to his work.
This framing also seems to apply to quantum mechanics where things in the same quantum frame of reference are aware of the states within the same frame whereas anything in a different quantum frame of reference is unknowable.
Hi Matt, I absolutely love the show despite not having any formal education in physics beyond the age of 16. Your explanations of complex phenomena are incredible and have rekindled my interest in the subject!
I've been mulling over a question to which I haven't found an answer on the internet. I wondered if you could provide some insight.
If two black holes were orbiting each other very closely and their event horizons overlapped, what would happen to a particle that entered into the overlapping section of both event horizons? All geodesics lead to the singularity beyond an event horizon, but they can't lead to two singularities.
My theory (based on no maths and purely on conjecture) is that the possible geodesics of the particle all remain within the overlapping "Venn diagram-esque" section of the event horizons as the black holes' orbits decay. As the black holes get closer and the overlap in their event horizons gets bigger, the particle's possible geodesics include the new, larger area of spacetime. Then, either, the particle meets both singularities simultaneously at the point at which they merge, or when the black holes eventually merge, all of the particle's possible paths point to the "new" combined singularity.
I picture it as though the particle is dragged around inside the overlapping sections of the event horizon. I would really appreciate it if you could provide clarity on this! Alternatively, please let me know if this has been answered previously, or whether this question is completely nonsensical.
Thanks,
Hugo
When two perfectly round soap bubbles are squished together you don't get overlaps of their surface, but you get two joined bubbles where the part that should be overlapping is now the edge of both bubbles and they are no longer round in that area - straight line. They divide the air pressure as efficiently as possible to minimize surface tension.
there is no overlap. Black holes bend space-time to infinity. The way the light takes into a black hole or out of a black hole is infinite, and with it the distance we measure. One black hole literally needs to travel infinitely long (both in distance and in time) to reach the event horizon of another black hole. Which is not possible, since u assume a finite time the universe existed.
There is quite literally infinite space between u and every event horizon.
Also got this from that stack exchange answers, a youtube channel with simulations of merging black holes:
ruclips.net/user/SXSCollaboration
just buy some good reference books about black hole harmonics, their thermodynamics, wave dynamics, or something which gives deeper understanding of their behaviour mathematically. Find and read good research articles which are published every month in reputed journals. Finally, talk to some good astrophysicists and professors who give regular lectures about this topic. Only then you will understand the VAST nature of the black holes. Its ok if you dont have any formal education in this, but you can start learning right now instead of wondering for answers on internet.
Don't worry, you can make up any ridiculous thought you want apparently.
We’re just thousands of brilliant minds trying to figure out THE question.. love it, and always have since 2015
Earth and All to he human were made of stardust... Stardust and stars are made within the universe ..
We are the universe experiencing itself.
My less than brilliant mind is still trying to figure out this episode 😆
What happened in 2015
this RUclips channel has 2.5 million subscribers. Not thousands of great minds, we are millions strong ✊
Figure out the question and there lies the answer.
You have an image where the singularity of the white hole and the singularity of the black hole are paired with the event horizons going in opposite directions in time. However, if you pair the event horizons with the white hole singularity at the beginning and the black hole at the end, you have an expansion then contraction of a spiral universe.
That contraction eventually becing dense enough to cause a big band explosion and so the whole process begins again
Ur refreshing lol exactly... microcosmic\macrocosmic inversion... tesseracts; fold.
@@yingofdarknes its actually a constant... time makes you percieve that spatial dimension as linear.
@@yingofdarknes You mean Artie Shaw and Glenn Miller will return? (Big Band explosion...)
The one thing I always wondered is if time will eventually be observed to be an actual physical object of some sort or if time will always remain as a universally accepted idea to measure the length of observation or certain events. Like a 24 hour day and 365 day year doesn’t actually exist we just all accept the breakdown of how long our earth takes to rotate on its axis or orbit around the sun. In the end time as we know it is just a byproduct of mathematics
Sorry time is just an observation we humans make. Also just a result of gravity...
If time is indeed a dimension of space time like height, width and so on, it would probably be best to think of it as a geographical concept rather than a force or similar.
You can only perceive a single instant, so it feels like you’re being forced downstream, but if you think about it in geographical terms…
In that case, assuming you remain entirely stationary, you can get an xyzt coordinate for yourself where t represents the amount of ‘space’ you occupy in the fourth dimension - what you perceive as your own finite lifespan.
Ergo, you don’t stop existing. The rest of humanity simply moves to a location where you are not present and, as far as the universe is concerned, you’re right where you’ve always been.
But of course, you’re always moving, so your true location is everywhere you’ve ever been or will be.
My head hurts.
@@RifterDask a good aproximation
Ok lets put it this way. If there was no observer of time progressing time would cease to exist only position and progression. It was here, then here then here... Etc. So it really simplifies what time is. It will be here as some point. Was here at another point. We make time more finite and discriminatory when i was 2 on this day it was here. This happened on that day. Take us out of the picture there is less meaning and more detachment. Im forgetting a term sorry....
No. This literally makes zero sense. As an ACTUAL astro-physicist, this is just embarrassing. Science is real and it matters. Hence, it doesn't mean you can just whip up fantasy, make-belief, hodge-podge nonsense that bears zero basis on anything factual. What an absolute sham and disgrace to science. You should be ashamed.
Barring the fact that we don't actually have any evidence, I feel like this makes sense. I guess black holes and white holes are like two sides of a chemical reaction: something things go in one side and come out the other looking a bit different, but all the building blocks for each are still there.
The cosmological event horizon depending on your location in the apparent centre of that universe seems to make it more 'virtual' than the presumably location independent event horizon of a black hole.
The center of a 4D universe would be its expansion boundary.
No trajectory in 3D space would get you there but any trajectory backward in time would.
we are at the center of the "observable universe" which is the part of the universe we can observe. it is "virtual" yes. we have no idea and never will know what's beyond that limit
Yes. The observable horizon is virtual event horizon, and essentially descriptive rather than physical. In that regard I don't know that it is a great analogy or reflection of a black hole's event horizon, which does not appear to be virtual at all.
If you go with the holographic principle, and suggest a 2D black hole event horizon as the 'structure' from which our 3D universe arises, then that 2D surface would in effect be 'infinitely' far away from us. That would be a 'real' event horizon to our universe, in that you could never see or approach it. By definition, you can never actually see or approach a true Event Horizon from 'inside' it.
But the moment you say something is 'infinitely' far away, it's really more of a linguistic error than a mathematical statement - it would be better to say that our 3D coordinate space is *derived from* that 2D one, but not physically relative to it at all. Sort of an 'everywhere and nowhere' sort of situation. You couldn't reach the event horizon - you're already a part of it. It *is* the film from which our universe is projected.
Again, that's all assuming that the Holographic Principle is accurate.
What we usually call "The Event Horizon" of a black hole is actually just the border beyond no light can ever reach a still standing observer that is infinitely far away from the black hole. However, if you are falling into a black hole then light below that event horizon can actually reach you (at a time after you have crossed the event horizon as well). So an in falling observer would effectively see a different event horizon that is further down. So event horizons are always observer dependent.
Watch some of Leonard Susskinds lectures on this subject for a more detailed explanation
that concept is sick, i will stick to it
In the case of a black hole, hawking radiation slowly accelerates as the black hole shrinks in mass, eventually destroying the black hole entirely (theoretically) in a large release of energy in a very short time. In many ways the expansion of the universe sounds a lot like this. The expansion starts off very slow but gradually accelerates over time until the universe no longer exists for all intents and purposes. The higher the mass of the black hole, the longer it takes hawking radiation to shrink the black hole. Similarly, the higher the mass of the universe, the slower the universe's expansion is since more mass can resist the acceleration for longer. Could we be living in a black hole where hawking radiation is manifesting in our black hole universe as the accelerating expansion of the universe?
So the inside grows while the outside shrinks? Seems off right there.
@@fooferutter3001 are they growing though? Couldn't you just say they are going from infinitely compressed to their lowest energy state? And if a Black Hole is a 4D object and we are measuring a 3D space, 3D space can grow infinitely until the 4th dimensional volume can reach 0.
For example. Take a cube, and stretch its length and width to infinity, but while you scale L and W, you decrease H. You end up with a plane, you go from a cube with volume to a plane with volume. Where the object has effectively shrunk out of an entire dimension, but has remained the same size overall.
Hey, let's assume the Universe is infinite. Now consider the fundamental constants of nature. Are they really constant everywhere? Maybe they "drift" over distance? Not enough to be noticeable to us in our tiny area of observable universe.
What I learned: if we're in the blackhole, what's outside?? Other living creatures wondering if they're inside a blackhole?
Blackhole-ception
Yes in fact everything outside our black hole would be massive in comparison to us because when you enter a black hole it breaks you down to smaller bits then atoms itself. Meaning a dust mite on our planet could be in fact as large as a lightyear in length in that universe while we would be billions of light-years in length if we somehow ended up our size in that universe.
@@ghosthunter0404 Bro, all this is TRIPPING!!!!
12:15 “what’s on the outside”
The “multiverse” that everyone seems to think exists… Outside could be another version of us where outside of their universe is just another version of us again so on and so forth
I've always wanted to ask this: if time slows down in proximity of a black hole to the point of stopping inside of it, how does a black hole have the time to form? Wouldn't time be so slow inside of the forming black hole that it would take more time for it to form than the age of the universe?
I hope I phrased the question decently, thanks a lot for the good content you provide :))
I think that's why they say the Black Hole singularity forms infinitely far into the future. At least from our point of view on the outside.
Time slows down from the perspective on an outside observer. It's the opposite inside of the event horizon, time speeds up infinitely.
@@nikolasbryant4235 if it forms infinitely far into the future, how come we can observe black holes now?
It doesn't have time to form. Hawking radiation dissolves the black hole before it has time to complete its collapse. The universe will be a void of massless particles separated from each other with a cosmological event horizon before the black hole even has time to contract 1% more than it already has since the instant it appeared completely dark to us.
I have yet to see anyone address this, by the way, and I've been watching these kinds of videos for years.
@@santopadre7284 Remember that the singularity is a consequence of General Relativity, predicting what should be at the centre of the a black hole. However, we can not *observe* what lies inside a black hole. What's inside it actually doesn't matter. All we can see is the event horizon.
So, from our perspective, all the matter that formed the black hole never crossed the EH, and is frozen at the EH; but mathematically, we can not observe what happens at the EH, and it looks like all that matter were at the centre of the black hole.
The idea of infinitely nestled universes would look a lot like a fractal figure, since there are many black holes in our universe, so possibly many mini-univereses, and they would possibly have the same, and so on (and of course the inverse as well, our universe could be a single black hole in a bigger universe with many other black holes)
@No_Name I don't see why. It seems entirely arrogant to assume that all of existence ever revolved around us. Our existence was only ever as important as we decided it was, and as far as I'm concerned, it is completely irreplaceable and of the utmost importance.
@No_Name 1st you don't actually need to hold that thought. 2nd you can always asked what's even bigger and even smaller. By the fact that a scientific theory must be falsifiable, it is implied that there can actually never be a final theory.
3rd Science is limited, ultimately build on axioms, nothing more than assumptions. We can use that to our benefit and take it seriously to the degree explains the world but not necessarily take philosophical interpretations too seriously. Like meaning, consciousness. Why is there something rather than nothing. Science will never answer these kinds of questions. So you don't have to take it as an authority where it doesn't have authority.
@No_Name why would it be pointless? it is relative
I think it maybe s hyperlink universe series like Internet rather than a nested or fractal universe series.
Crazy to think that this theory is just sitting adjacent to the simulation theory since both would be fractal figures.
A fractal set of universes is a cool idea. I'm guessing we probably won't discover the origin of the universe conclusively for many lifetimes, if at all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying.
There was no origin!
I like to think we came from the beginning of a white hole its the exact opposite of a black hole if you never herd of it you should check out a vid.
@@altclut are you saying that the universe is a steady state?
@@altclut the origin is everywhere, its a question of how, not where or when
they'll figure it out eventually
Not just "inside" - "is":
The sensory observation ("detection"; "measurement"; as you prefer) of the "particle with a lot of energy -- or 'mass'" as such, is the conscious observer's focusing of the energy (the self-relative motion - or acceleration-flow-pulse -- of the otherwise scale-uniform "spacetime continuum" superfluid) necessary to manifest the "warp" in spacetime that is the "observation" of that 'particulate' spacetime behavioral "event". Sounds a little scary, and perhaps philosophically disorienting (at first), but the "material universe" as we 'perceive' (are "conscious" of) it is the purely dynamic self-fractalizing, 'activity' of a horn-toroidal geometry fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole") in/of an otherwise scale-uniform superfluid medium 'configuring' itself into a 'simulation' (thus the 'small' scale "uncertainty principle" lack of definition/distinction between 'object [position; location])' and its 'motion [momentum]'), if you will, of a self-aware self-organizing network of discrete spatially distributed 'particulate' I/O devices. The next question is, what are we "humans", as product-participants in that endeavor, going to do with this newly acquired "information" -- i.e. this "linguistically encoded self-map" -- now that we have it?
RECALL and CONSIDER: The combination of only two specific acceleration-pulse amounts (e.g. "0" and "1", if you will) within (i.e. or as definitive of) a specific increment of time -- e.g. as the self-regulated motion of a single 'substance' -- provides a sufficient basis for information [as intelligently coded signal] processing.
Why can’t we assume geodesics are simply distorted due to extreme gravity beyond the event horizon? They could continue infinitely depending where or if a black hole has an end.
For the same reason parallel lines meet at infinity. Because the mathematical concept of infinity is weird.
@@xplorethings Infinity isn’t a point in Euclidean space though.
@@I_SuperHiro_I Why would you assume Euclidean space when talking about spacetime?
@@xplorethings you said parallel lines meet at infinity. They don’t. And in non Euclidean space, there are no parallel lines, so I don’t get what you’re trying to say.
I've always thought that this is true. Can't wait to learn more about this topic.
What evidence made you think it is true?
Me to. My top reason for thinking so was not addressed: It makes up not the center of... well.. everything. It makes our universe not special. Every black hole is an opportunity for another universe that might be right for life someplace.
yeah it seems like the only way things could be, other than the other ways things could be, of which there are many. there's no other possibility besides all the other possibilities!
jokes aside yeah it certainly does make the anthropic argument for fine-tuning easier to make
A black hole is an ovum for an even larger creature. We're just the dreams of a person to be.
We could be inside a black hole. We could never perceive ourselves entering a black hole because gravity warps time. From the outside looking in we would be spaghettified instantly, but from our own perspective we would simply orbit the event horizon forever and never get close to it. The entire universe could have already been destroyed eons ago but we can never perceive it.
Dude that is crazy 😳 great observation.
Okay...the thing about black holes is that they're anything but black, and they don't reveal what goes on inside, aside from the whole seven minutes.
As for the spaghettification, that occurs when the aperture, otherwise known as the event horizon, is too small for the object attempting to fit inside; if we're already inside the black hole, then the outside universe doesn't have to know, and information needs to be sorted somehow. I'll watch the video later.
Eternity and time are as different as night and day. Eternity has no time and is before time ever was, and is still before time ever was or without time. You can have a conscious eternity, or an unconscious eternity as would be the case at the bottom of the throat in the singularity, and yes you would be spaghettified no matter how big the aperture is or was. Read eternal terror/death.
@@mikeettinger7132 I agree about eternity so I changed my wording to make more sense. And my theory about different perceptions of time actually comes from Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the TV documentary "Cosmos". Gravity warps time and space so our perceptions of time are different based on gravitational pull.
@@paxincaelo Of course. I read the earlier one by Carl Sagan, so I haven't the foggiest what you're talking about.
Has anyone ever calculated the schwarschild radius for all the known matter in the observable universe? If our universe is smaller than that figure, then we are definitely living inside a black hole.
The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light-years.
@@toddsiegrist is it a coincidence that this number is incredibly close to the age of the universe?
@@hanzhang3589 Exactly what I thought! This is wild. Your question sent me down a rabbit trail last night!
@@toddsiegrist lmao! okay
The reason why this calculation seems so miraculous is because the universe is just barely beyond the threshold of not recollapsing. You would get "we're in a black hole" if the universe's expansion eventually would reverse and cause collapse, which of course must make a black hole.
This video is fantastic! Gave me the same awe and inspiration chills i used to get watching vsauce back in the day. Great content!
So could it be possible that a black hole collects everything it can and when it collapses to our view, on the other side of the black hole is another big bang... creating another universe in a neverending cycle of new universes.
Definitely, It could be a fractal.
I had though for years that the big bang is the other side of a truly spectacular black hole. What else could have the matter of trillions of galaxies and quintillions of stars and have that emanate out from a single point?
The only difference between our universe and a black hole singularity is that our universe contains space between the matter. It started off with no space between the matter, and now has lots of it, with more pouring in from everywhere at an exponential rate and apparently containing net energy even in the vacuum appearing before our very eyes.
In our own universe a black hole appears to form in the same way. There's an initial formation of a singularity of infinite density from whatever created it, then the black hole just goes on it's merry way with space falling into it until it eventually evaporates. Presumably all the net energy of the vacuum quantum fields falling into it has to go somewhere too.
but the space between atoms and even on the macroscopic scale consists of virtual particles. theres no actual "space" between anything.
@@octofrostvapes587 There is an energy density spectrum, and OP is correctish.
It’s easy to understand all that energy radiating as heat, during formation, life, and death, if you imagine black holes as ‘compression algorithms’, which do their best (by principle of least action) to ‘compute’ the entropy of themselves. I believe is already shown in computer science that black holes are best computers.
The quantum info, as you may know gets entangled as it is compressed - which is the only way to reduce file size without info loss. Entangled however as well with the horizon’s radiation heat.
@@octofrostvapes587 QFT is your friend, from which all particles (inc virtual) exist. The universe we find ourselves in from which QFT emerges from is the humdinger.
There is space between matter inside an event horizon. An infinite amount of it, infact.
It's "relative space" actually. Since gravity is the same as acceleration -- moving towards another object in a black hole at any given speed relative to objects outside the singularity, gets you closer to a relativistic speed -- it requires more energy and time. Your time is slowed due to all your motions being closer to relativity, and that means that SPACE locally is flat. As long as the distribution of density is the same, it's very likely the particles can appear to be just as space-filled as what is witnessed externally to a singularity.
But, objects at a distance would appear to move faster, and could violate the speed of light. Astronomers have actually witnessed this.
However, I don't think we are in a black hole, but that's a longer conversation.