Literally came upon your page by accident, watched about 10 videos and I'm fully impressed with you by far some of the most informative content on RUclips I've ever seen. Well done sir
Not sure if anyone cares but if you are bored like me during the covid times then you can watch all the new movies on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my girlfriend during the lockdown xD
@@WorksopGimp oh my God shut up with your imaginary story time, self gratifying, random and unnecessary little electric universe fairy tale. You believe in it because it makes you feel superior and clever and bc it's 'edgy' to not think like most people do, not because it's the endpoint of the most logical reasoning reinforced by support from many, many different experiments and observation.
Thats crazy that the entirety of the moon to become a black hole, has to shrink to millimeters. yet, there are black holes the size of plutos orbit out there. thats a lot of mass. we really are insignificant
And yet in the scale of “things” in the universe we are as individuals pretty big. The difference between an atom vs the observable universe is much smaller then the scale of a human being vs a plank length. So we are actually also very significant in our insignificance. Paradoxically.
Yup, that is big. But the scale still favours humans as pretty big things in the universe since the scale of the very small is indeed very small. 1.6 x 10 to the -35 meters is a plank length. 8.8 x 10 to the +26 meters for the observable universe across. While that is very big, humans are aprox 1.7 meters which puts them well into the scale of really big objects in the universe. In fact we are frigg’n huge to use a scientific term!
I don't know but this seems very off. He showed and said that the black holes and basically the star at the end are smaller than any particle, yet it can have a mass of matter of 200 tons. How is that possible? Also I have read many article with scientists saying that even here on earth, like at cern very probably many microscopical black holes has been created and vanished right away. So where is that 100.000 zar bombs?
@@mirelalazaroiu7718 i think if black hole are generated at LHC (Cern is the organisation) the mass is so tiny they can't produce energy, they don't have the mass of half a moon but the mass of a few particles.
When the moons turns into a bh then its safe. But as time goes on, the bh will loss energy and this energy will shine bright. Maybe as bright as a star. An this energie maybe will be like those amount of zard bombs untill it vaporates because of infinity heat. Correct me if I missunderstand his meaning. Especially at the last seconds of its beeing
keep up the good work. I find his explanation of various cosmological events so much more easier to understand through simulations. Beats the way I explain it which is through equations.
200,000 kg of matter can be smaller than a particle??? What an awesome universe we live in. This is so completely different from the understandings previously held on mass. Almost as if it truly doesn’t exist, everything is far more pure energy than even 20-30 years ago thought. Thanks for the update.
Anton is the best at bringing particle physics into simple science which isn’t easy it’s truly the most informative and non biased and He’s a wonderful person But please Anton get some rest bro you look tired a lot these days take care of yourself and thanks for all the great vids
I have a couple questions: 1. How can a black hole, the entity with so much energy at some little space, spinning stupidly fast, have a temperature close to absolute zero. I thought they are really hot 2. You said if a very tiny black hole with a size of a subatomic particle enters our body, we wouldn't feel anything. Wouldn't even that small of a bh still have a lot of mass?
This is the answer for your second question (in my opinion). Those tiny black holes' mass is small enough not to even be noticed by its surroundings. It doesn't have enough gravity to pull even atoms from our body (or whatever else).
Okey but if you swallow a couple of tons they would fall down to the ground? So that tiny black whole would make microscopic whole into you and fall down to the ground rigth?
One of the reasons I have always enjoyed listening to or reading the works of Hawking, deGrasse-Tyson, Carl Sagan, and many others of the same kind is that they are able to take extremely complex concepts and put them in words that even an ignorant classical musician can understand. You have that talent. Please keep making these so that we may continue to learn from your wealth of knowledge!
@Ronces Sacrées yeah, the official/actual photograph of a black hole. We don't know how it looks like (or it's surroundings actually). There are some sort of telescope instalations around the world which combined are gathering pictures of anything that might seem like a black hole based on what we know/expect and are filtered to match some qualifications to maximize accuracy.
freeman239 interesting and not obvious question as well as answer. When the negative or positive particle falls inside and the other twin falls outside a tiny portion of energy is lost to the black hole. Energy equals mass and thus it starts to evaporate. What was a virtual particle becomes an actual particle because it remains long enough to generate a field, (depending on what actual partial it is) and it’s twin when absorbed becomes inconsolable and doesn’t annihilate causes a net loss to the energy of the local environment, (the black hole).
As I understand it, it is the gravirational energy of the black hole that causes the virtual particles generated by the vacuum of spacetime at the right place at the right time to become real. And because it only keeps one for the price of creating two it looses energy. But I could be wrong, and if I am not my description is crude and incomplete 🙂
@@john-paulsilke893 I see. The black hole lose energy/mass to produce a real particle from a virtual particle. It is like a cost to make a virtual particle real.
if its at random wouldn't it just balance out, as one or the other falls in and one is left outside of the black hole, the one outside would eventually hit one of the opposite charge, same for the ones falling in?
I wonder if what we keep calling "dark matter" is actually just a sea of micro black holes that make up the medium of space. What if space is made of micro black holes in the same way that the oceans are made of water? That might explain a lot about dark matter anomalies like the way the galaxies manage to hold together with some kind of unseen mass.
@therealnightwriter thats your seeing. But in real life, you would never say that. You wont just go outside and scream "ELON MUSK IN A LYING GATE KEEPER SHILL TURD LIAR". oh and also r/wooosh
Don't say he looks like a young Elon Musk. He can't help any resemblance he may have to that monster. Well, he could make his hair look different. But it's like those cats that people say look like Hitler, just because their coloration is a little bit unfortunate.
Maybe you can straighten this out for me: The way I understand it, virtual particle pairs that pop in and out of existence can be basically anything as long as sum of their parts total up to zero, zero charge, zero spin and zero mass. Wouldn't this mean, for one of the particles to have normal mass/energy, the other one must have negative energy to zero the pair out? If this is the case, in virtual pairs near an event horizon of a black hole, wouldn't the negative particle be very strongly repelled by the black hole, while "normal" particle would be strongly attracted and over time wouldn't this cause black holes to actually gain mass over time while increasing negative mass in the rest of the universe (thus accelerating how fast things move apart from each other)? I know my idea is unconventional but I've never had anyone give me a satisfactory answer as to why this wouldn't be the case.
Hate to necro a years old comment but virtual particles are more a mathematical tool than anything to simulate how interactions with particles work, it’s an abstraction of a real process, in the real processes while energy is still exchanged, virtual particles are never really generated, there is no pop in and out of existence, there’s only real particles, that is just a model and it’s generated a lot of confusion IMOs
I am struggling to get my head round some of this! Gravity increases as an inverse of the distance squared (I think) so this micro black hole inside your body would pull surrounding atoms into it! Even if the mass of the black hole was reduced drastically because of the minimal distances involved would the force still not be huge? Another aspect I do not understand is .... When matter approaches a black hole it is accelerated towards it. If enough of these particles are involved they will collide and generate heat and even radiation (so looking toward a black hole you would see a shell of energy rich matter radiating in all wavelengths .... a bit like a star!) At what stage (if any) would this outward pressure stop matter getting dragged down the gravity well, or even noticeably slowed? If you had a black hole that was fed matter from one direction it would spin. Enough spin and it would deform to form an oblate sphere. More and it would form a torus! Would this spinning torus have any unusual properties? You may be surprised that it is not easy to find information at this level as a non academic ;0)
I bought Universe Sandbox and downloaded Space Engine because of you. Great tools of science to learn and play with. Best appreciated on your channel. I click on these videos so fast.
Yeah, so the holographic principle involves how information is conserved. We actually know a lot about black holes thanks to GR and QT. We know that they contain most of the universe's entropy, and that entropy is proportional to the surface area of the BH. We know that as you approach the gravitational singularity in the center of the BH that there are no longer any circular geodesics, and radially inward becomes the only available direction. It's completely 1 dimensional. So the conjecture involving the holographic principle states that the information going into the BH simultaneously falls in, but is also stored along the horizon. Analogous to how holographic film stores information. Which is different than how a photograph stores information. The thought occured that if this can be applied to the horizon of a BH then it may also apply to the particle horizon of the universe. It's mathematically rigorous, but it seems consistent and appears to be the only thing at the moment that makes sense.
@Deven Swanson I watch a lot of lectures and read a lot of published scientific papers in math and physics. You have to make sure that you fulfill the prerequesites. As long as you understand Calculus then you can learn Classical Mechanics. With General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics there are more advanced types of algebras that you need to be familiar with. Black Hole physics and Conformal Field Theories are usually written in Lie Group Algebras such as Virasoro Algebra.
This video made me question, is it possible for light to orbit a black hole instead of being consumed by it? I'd like to think it can, but I'm not too sure about it.
Photons orbit bh. Mostly radiowa es that are even able to pass through tha acration Disc. Some Photons Fall in, some orbit bh and some are slingshoot by bh gravity and travel to us(bh Photo)
This one came up in my feed just today, but it is from LAST December. I love the little Einstein-like Professor Petrov in the corner. Fascinating info about black holes. Black holes are crazy.
When they reach the planck scale and become massless, I propose that they slip through our spacetime, and out of our universe into a place where they are no longer constrained and thus explode into a new spacetime.
Or they slip through spacetime into this universe, but in the past, when it started and it exploded, and so on and so on... Is there any scientist on this planet that actually believes that humans one day will find some kind of terminal/final explanation of why the universe works as it works? Seems impossible to me - not without making up stories of gods, etc.
@@LeelooMinai Yeah that would result in the big bang, if it was once a singularity which came from another parent universe. I believe at some fundamental level the complete theory is unknowable. Since we are humans inside the universe, and if the universe is treated as a system, one would have to experiment in a way that access something beyond the universe in order to know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean we can't come up with mathematical theories which seem to describe what we see and follow that line of reasoning further.
Anton, this is an older video, and I doubt you still police the many comments...but I have a few questions. Does what the black hole consumes influence its lifespan? Either way, if this black hole were to commute to a star, at its surface or inside of it, what would this do? My imagination allows for too many possibilities including an exploding star...but my big problem is with what happens to all of the matter a black hole consumes throughout its life. If you have a dying multi-billion year old black hole...how is it possible that it could disappear, or convert all of this matter to energy without being the most powerful and dangerous force we could observe? I am amazed by reality. The extreme scales of things are the most interesting, and your page feeeeds my need for information. thank you.
Anton - a subscriber here - I'd like to point somethingg out - while a micro black hole certainly could pass through a human body without any serious gravitational disruption (at least according to our best knowledge), there certainly could be extremely ill effects from the Hawking radiation. IIRC, according to our modelling, the last several years of the hole's existance, it is emitting about 4.7 terawatts of energy continuously. One thousand years before the hole's demise, the energy output is still quite considerable. Mini black holes are the basis for the most effective power plant conceivable by modern science. exdeeding even what may be obtained from antimatter (considerable energy may be harvested from matter entering a black hole.Later, considerable energy can be harvested from rediation emetted as the hole evaporates. Considerable rotational energy may also be harvested. The combination is in excess of the 100% conversion to energy of antimatter and matter).
@neffdigity If by whitehole you mean the precise opposite of a black hole. (i.e. instead of being impossible to escape, it becomes impossible to get inside). It wouldn't get quite that far. Lots of energy being released for sure, but not enough that forcibly entering the evaporating black hole would be impossible.
We're you ever a little bit sick when you were a kid and then started feeling like everything around you was massive? That's how I'm starting to feel watching this lol
Just imagine all that energy coming out at once though... Imagine we tried to use it for energy, but weren't able to contain it well enough. *aliens find our radioactive rubble somewhere past Neptune*
My question now is do micro-black holes exist right now? Black holes take so long to shrink and the only natural way they form is by compressing the cores of giant stars. The smallest naturally occuring black holes are about the size of a city and will most likely stay that way until the entire universe cools down, since they'll just keep sucking up more energy and growing in mass if the surrounding vaccuum is hotter than the inside of a black hole.
There may be primordial black holes. These are candidates for the seeds of supermassive black holes, such as the one at the center of our galaxy, and of dark matter (although a weak candidate that LIGO has ruled out quite convincingly). Some might exist, and they might be any size that is large enough to not decay until present day.
how do you figure... also the universe is not going to cool down, but crush into itself, a thing that is supposed to happen in like a ridiculous number of years ( something like a few hundreds millionis (1.million, 2. billions 3. trillions..... 100. insert whatever the name is.
We can't use BH for energy unless containing them and as you said they evaporate fast so we can't use them to store it either. Remember that nothing is createdd or destroyed and that everything changes; it means that to have infinite energy, despit eof converting mass into energy, you have to give in infinite energy.
So answer me this: how many tiny and super tiny and micro black holes would need to be interspersed throughout interstellar space to account for “dark matter” and “dark energy??”
I can't provide any references at the moment, without becoming significantly less lazy than i am at present. HOWEVER, this question HAS been addressed in various RUclips videos. Upshot: pretty unanimous concensus among astrophysicists that unseen black holes don't seem to be contributing very much to the mass of the universe - and Dark Matter behaves quite differently than normal matter or the mass inside black holes. So far as Dark Energy, its something else entirely: it cannot be simulated by black holes, no matter how many.
The other virtual particle becomes an actual particle whether it is a negative or positive particle. The universe abhors this and conserves this the black hole loses a tiny bit of energy. Now if it is a negative particle it will encounter a positive particle and thus annihilate and the black hole will regain that mass Just for fun and because it breaks my head; massless particles must travel at the speed of light and thus don’t experience time. That means any light that hits us from the Big Bang, (it has since shifted into xrays) is the same age as when it started nearly 14 billion years ago.
The particle lost is always an anti-matter particle, the matter particle escapes. When the anti-matter joins with the black hole, it annihilates some of its mass.
My two cents : the theory of micro black holes also state that if they evaporate, they disappear after a few billion years, likely around 14, which is in fact approximately the age of the universe as we know it, so it is very possible that we did not see them yet (detect the "final explosion") only because it's a bit too early
If there is a constant amount of virtual particles created per a volume of space, then there should be more particles going into more massive black hole, because it will have a horizon of greater size. If we assume that the analogy with virtual particles actually works.
@@DeusEversor Curved space tends to produce more virtual particles, and smaller black holes with a smaller radius curve space much more. Don't ask me how I know.
The problem about virtual particles is that it is requires less mass for these to come into existence. The less mass a object gets the more stuff gets summoned in existence. Which where spacetime expansion comes in handy when there are vast voids Or white holes
The equation c^2 = J/K applies to black holes.When the temperature is high enough the fundamental forces are said to merge. At lower temperatures the Energy to temperature dependance is much more complicated.
At the end of the universe when the black holes with trillions of mass of the sun die, it'd be so incredibly bright we could never comprehend it. 1 trillion masses of the sun converted to pure energy.
That's not how it works. All black hole evaporations will be exactly the same, as the evaporation rate depends on mass. It'll be like a star that gets brighter and brighter until it's nuclear blast levels of bright, and suddenly, pop, imagine a nuclear blast that then explodes. Thing is, it's not very impressive cosmologically. Impossible to detect at cosmic distances, even, but that's actually good. Keeping them at the proper level of mass will give us essentially a mass to energy power plant.
Full disclaimer I study Biology so a lot of this stuff is pretty foreign to me. I have a question though. I feel like I can kind of grasp the idea of virtual particles. And I also get the concept that if virtual particles generate too close to the event horizon then one virtual particle can get sucked in while the other particle actually escapes and becomes a real (non-virtual?) particle. However what I still cannot grasp is how the virtual particle that is entering the event horizon causes the black hole to lose mass over time? That seems counterintuitive to what's happening. Shouldn't the black hole be gaining mass over time due to the absorption of the particles? I know there's something here I'm not understanding and it's prolly basic af.
freeman239 happens all the time and so far it hasn’t killed us all yet. They dissolve far faster then the can consume so they shuffle loose their “mortal” coil and go quickly into nothingness. (A bit poetic and not exactly correct but you get the point). It’s kinda like artificially creating a critical mass and causing a fission reaction. It doesn’t continue unchecked because the fissile materials are consumed too fast for the to runaway into fusion and burst into a small star. The materials just aren’t dense enough much like trying to start a camp fire by putting a stick every 10,000 miles and expecting a single match to burn across the gap.
It is so dense and so small that can't interact with our atoms, so we are safe. Even they pass through our body just like neutroinos coming from stars and we feel nothing. We need bigger but still small black hole to create a considerable explosion and use it for energy(and maybe for military purposes).
I'm with you and the rest(or most) of the physics community on this Hawking was wrong, and he knew he was wrong. He was working on correcting his mistake, sadly he died without the chance to redeem him self
if you have a "virtual particle" that separates from its co-particle and thus both becomes a real particle, where one goes into the black hole and the other just kinda screws off, doesn't that mean the black hole gained one particle of mass, how did it lose mass from this
He's done one. The process is called 'spaghettification'. That's where your atoms get stretched and compressed the closer you get. Like if you were heading in nose-first, the atoms at the tip of your nose would be leaving your face faster than the rest of your face will. Even your atoms get stretched and compressed - right down to sub-atomic particles. Then whatever reaches the event horizon gets destroyed down to x-rays, gamma rays and the like. Then gets jetted out on the poles in a particle stream. You would be converted to radiation and expelled out across the void many light years.
Black holes have the same gravitational pull as it did before it became a black hole. So for example if Jupiter became a black hole, it wouldn't have any gravitational differences to it which would effect Earth. The radiation would fry Earth though.
@@W1se0ldg33zer exactly, stretching and crush might be happening faster than breaking of bonds on any level: biological, chemical, atomic, sub atomic etc. It would , in a fluid boundless way covert you into background radiation or anything simpler of kind, before you'd get into singularity... there nothing matter anymore :) although, interesting thought arises, is your conciousness going to shut down long before, or will the process occur so "fast", "you" "will" "conciously" "experience" "it" "before" "death" "?"... a planck cat? Schrodingers conciousnes
The universe is so strange. When enough star stuff comes together such that its gravity prevents the emission of light, a black hole is suddenly created. Somehow, when it evaporates to the same point, you don't get a sudden creation of a star. Apparently it's sudden in one direction and gradual in the other. The universe is so strange.
I don't understand this. Why does it loose mass? In the animation from 2:20 it clearly shows that the black hole gets mass and not looses it. THe particles are created outside the event horizon. One goes into the black hole and one goes away. The black hole gets one particle more and not one less because there aren't any particles that are travelling from the inside out.
On a side note: These particles do not pop into, and out of, existence from a literal/absolute "Nothing". But rather, they come from underlying quantum foam. Remember E=mc^2
What I see at the end of this ultra-small bh is an almost plank length sized object that is releasing a very large amount of energy from a very small object. That means the emitted energy will be very massive and since the emission can only be at light speed the mass continues to go up and the resultant particles created from the massive energy release means all forces become unified. All four forces. A particle will be involved to cover this unification.
*Warning: all this is purely theoretical!* I for one doubt Hawking (and the bandwagon) on this, because: (1) there's no empirical evidence whatsoever, (2) it's based on reasonings of enthropy that are fundamental to *classical* thermodynamics but that only consider the outside of the black hole and not the inside of it. I.e. the reasoning is: enthropy must (statistically) increase and Hawking radiation breaches this principle for the whole Universe, hence the black hole must somehow pay for that and thus lose mass and evaporate. However the same is true for the black hole: enthropy increases inside it because there's also Hawking radiation falling in and thus, following the same logic, the external universe should "pay its debt" by evaporating. My guess is that just neither happens, that thermodynamics is not that absolutely universal, much less considering statistic likelihood and nothing else is what is behind the principle of ever-growing enthropy and that this does not apply to other singularities like the Big Bang. What does seem likely is that (conjectured) plank-sized black holes would be extremely volatile because of quantum uncertainty, but such thing has never ever been observed even if they are trying hard in the LHC over there at Geneva.
@@xsavagegamer7732 - You're right, grammar nazi but correct nonetheless. It was a honest typo, I do know correct, just that my autopilot sometimes doesn't.
@@gobblefunkfrothbungler8948 - Tell that to Hawking, LOL. He didn't just mix both but also used a hack for that, so it's not even theoretically too solid, yet he got all that fame for that reason. And I still like Hawking a lot but I disagree with jumping to conclusions based ONLY on a hack to overcome our lack of a unified theory, and then not being able to prove it empirically. To this day Hawking radiation and its alleged evaporation effects remain a crude theory, there's not a single piece of evidence backing that. But still we must mix macro and micro if we want to unify, even if Hawking would be wrong he still did the right thing in trying to overcome our theoretical limitations, actually all QFT is, with its many limitations, where macro and micro, GR and QM, overlap at our current (and rather stagnant) state of knowledge. If we are to find a TOE, we would need to understand how mass generates gravity (or maybe how lack of mass generates anti-gravity, there's a new theory suggesting that's what actually happens and attempting to explain both dark energy and dark matter that way, I find it very intriguing even if I only understand it very shallowly), we know how quantum fields (mostly the gluon field) generate mass but we still do not understand how that mass/energy curves spacetime, that's the gordian knot of a unified theory.
It's really not that hard to understand, bud. But if you want to make it into more than it is, go nuts and let your imagination run wild! You never know who the next Hawking is... or sorry someone who isn't on a "bandwagon".
Virtual particles last only long enough not to contradict the conservation of energy. When they do violate this law, the universe steps in to set the balance sheet and thus the black hole loses mass. Also if the particle that escapes is a negative one and it later a annihilates the black hole will regain its lost mass.
made pretty fuckin easy to understand for the simple explanation particle1 + particle2 = ParticleX , this entire process gets its energy from the black hole itself 1 + 1 = 2 if particle1 escapes and particle2 falls into the black hole, the black hole gets only half the energy back it invested to create the ParticleX which never gets to exist
i prefer calling it ,,ies-zone,, ies= (I)n(ES)capable cuz inescapable-zone is a bit long so. ies-zone (i pronounce it as ,,i-s-zone,, like instead of e theres a space) Edit:please dont ask
A star is a gas that is so massive it begins to crush and split atoms. A black hole is when there is too much mass before hand and now the fusion process can’t happen because it’s crushing the atoms so bad that they loose the electrons. The matter inside is a non Newtonian liquid of subatomic particles. The reason a star cannot enter instantly is that they’re in different states.
How is a black hole cold? What with all that rapidly swirling matter that makes up the accretion disk, and all that energy compressed together, you'd think it would have to be super hot?
ok, simple and stupid question: "how exactly does the black hole lose mass if one of the particle fall inside and one escapes?"... shouldn't the black hole actually gain mass over time assuming this theory? (that particles are appearing at the event horizon, not inside the black hole itself).
particle1 + particle2 = ParticleX , this entire process gets its energy from the black hole itself 1 + 1 = 2 if particle1 escapes and particle2 falls into the black hole, the black hole gets only half the energy back it invested to create the ParticleX which never gets to exist
@@felixmustermann790 So, half of the energy spent on creating particlex will be lost by the blackhole. Can this energy be calculated assuming you know the blackhole mass and spin? thus calculating how fast is evaporating?
My question on this subject is that if the virtual particles splitting, one going into the black hole and the other leaving the black hole, how is adding a single particle the cause of it to decay? I would think adding a particle to the black hole would if anything keep it going at a minimum if not help reduce it's decaying process.
Well, he made the statement that a blackhole is the only thing that can reach infinite energy. Considering that the space around the blackhole has to reach near absolute zero, I'd say this points to the moment when all the blackholes have merged into one, that one has eventually evaporated to the point where it reaches near infinite energy but can no longer maintain its "blackholeness" BOOM, a new big bang.
Question: how is a black hole cold on the inside if it ate the core of a star when it was formed? I'd just expect the heat would be kept along with the gravity. Physics like this are a big bite for me to get a grasp on, so please help an ingoramus out?
That's weird: the particle moving inside the black hole actually makes it heavier, so I wouldn't call that evaporation. The escaping particle is not what we get from the black hole, but from vacuum
Why does the black hole lose mass? Is not the amount of virtual particles leaving the black hole the same as virtual particles entering the event horizon? What am I getting wrong?
Literally came upon your page by accident, watched about 10 videos and I'm fully impressed with you by far some of the most informative content on RUclips I've ever seen. Well done sir
That's what happened to me!
same here :)
You should watch fermilab if you love informative content
Not sure if anyone cares but if you are bored like me during the covid times then you can watch all the new movies on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my girlfriend during the lockdown xD
@Nico Kabir Yup, have been watching on instaflixxer for months myself =)
"The first picture of a black hole hasn't come out yet."
Fast forward just a year....
You should know with a name like Electro the universe is electric and that is a plasma discharge electromagnetic toroidal field patten
@@WorksopGimp
The universe is a cell inside of some kind of nuclear generator/devise.
@@Cymduu it’s actually just a zit on a giants ass. Surprised you didn’t know that.
@@WorksopGimp oh my God shut up with your imaginary story time, self gratifying, random and unnecessary little electric universe fairy tale. You believe in it because it makes you feel superior and clever and bc it's 'edgy' to not think like most people do, not because it's the endpoint of the most logical reasoning reinforced by support from many, many different experiments and observation.
Man, I learn a lot from this channel.
learning theories good for you
@@owar7105 Excuse you
I hope you love hot places.
Nicolomeus Well he’s not basing his information off Universe Sandbox. Just using it as an explanation and visualization tool. Stop hating.
I find his videos more educational than actual educational videos of space xD
Angry cat
Thats crazy that the entirety of the moon to become a black hole, has to shrink to millimeters. yet, there are black holes the size of plutos orbit out there. thats a lot of mass. we really are insignificant
And now imagine this: even the mass of the largest black holes are mere drops in the ocean of the mass of the universe. THAT is how small we are. :p
And yet in the scale of “things” in the universe we are as individuals pretty big. The difference between an atom vs the observable universe is much smaller then the scale of a human being vs a plank length. So we are actually also very significant in our insignificance. Paradoxically.
There are black holes 20 solar systems across. That’s how mindnumbingly big these monsters get
Yup, that is big. But the scale still favours humans as pretty big things in the universe since the scale of the very small is indeed very small. 1.6 x 10 to the -35 meters is a plank length. 8.8 x 10 to the +26 meters for the observable universe across. While that is very big, humans are aprox 1.7 meters which puts them well into the scale of really big objects in the universe. In fact we are frigg’n huge to use a scientific term!
John-Paul Silke makes you wonder why the universe exists don’t it?
6:03 - It's save! You won't feel a thing.
3 minutes later...
9:45 - It will feel like 100.000 Zar bombs in your face.
I don't know but this seems very off. He showed and said that the black holes and basically the star at the end are smaller than any particle, yet it can have a mass of matter of 200 tons. How is that possible? Also I have read many article with scientists saying that even here on earth, like at cern very probably many microscopical black holes has been created and vanished right away. So where is that 100.000 zar bombs?
@@mirelalazaroiu7718 i think if black hole are generated at LHC (Cern is the organisation) the mass is so tiny they can't produce energy, they don't have the mass of half a moon but the mass of a few particles.
When the moons turns into a bh then its safe. But as time goes on, the bh will loss energy and this energy will shine bright. Maybe as bright as a star. An this energie maybe will be like those amount of zard bombs untill it vaporates because of infinity heat. Correct me if I missunderstand his meaning. Especially at the last seconds of its beeing
Mirela Lazaroiu _r/woooooosh
Friedrich Wagner Tsar?
very good Anton
I've been watching for a few years now - hope things are good in your part of the world
- greetings from Minnesota
keep up the good work. I find his explanation of various cosmological events so much more easier to understand through simulations. Beats the way I explain it which is through equations.
I'm glad to see that the virtual particles look like bugs.
even better, they look like fruit fly's.
13 minute video about 1 second incident
Thanks for making this video, it was very insightful
200,000 kg of matter can be smaller than a particle???
What an awesome universe we live in.
This is so completely different from the understandings previously held on mass.
Almost as if it truly doesn’t exist, everything is far more pure energy than even 20-30 years ago thought.
Thanks for the update.
Mind-blowing!
I love wrapping my head around the ideas in your wonderfully done presentations. 😁
Anton is the best at bringing particle physics into simple science which isn’t easy it’s truly the most informative and non biased and He’s a wonderful person But please Anton get some rest bro you look tired a lot these days take care of yourself and thanks for all the great vids
I have a couple questions:
1. How can a black hole, the entity with so much energy at some little space, spinning stupidly fast, have a temperature close to absolute zero. I thought they are really hot
2. You said if a very tiny black hole with a size of a subatomic particle enters our body, we wouldn't feel anything. Wouldn't even that small of a bh still have a lot of mass?
Black holes are hot but cold inside
This is the answer for your second question (in my opinion).
Those tiny black holes' mass is small enough not to even be noticed by its surroundings. It doesn't have enough gravity to pull even atoms from our body (or whatever else).
2. A couple 100 tons sounds like a lot, but it's not enough to create any sort of gravity you could feel. Gravity is really, really weak.
@@SpaghettiToaster well, a hundred ton black hole would feel like a weak magnet.
Okey but if you swallow a couple of tons they would fall down to the ground? So that tiny black whole would make microscopic whole into you and fall down to the ground rigth?
I bought Universe sandbox because of your insightful videos... definitely don't regret it
I want to try it as well, if only to mess around with giant planets lol
I thought that black hole said it was called "Black Hole Sun" at 5:20 but apparently not. Still a great song though.
This is the best channel on RUclips
One of the reasons I have always enjoyed listening to or reading the works of Hawking, deGrasse-Tyson, Carl Sagan, and many others of the same kind is that they are able to take extremely complex concepts and put them in words that even an ignorant classical musician can understand. You have that talent. Please keep making these so that we may continue to learn from your wealth of knowledge!
I can’t wait for that official picture to come out.
Craykoth52 same for me dude.
@Ronces Sacrées yeah, the official/actual photograph of a black hole. We don't know how it looks like (or it's surroundings actually). There are some sort of telescope instalations around the world which combined are gathering pictures of anything that might seem like a black hole based on what we know/expect and are filtered to match some qualifications to maximize accuracy.
@@jedenzet so there is no picture yet can use send the link here when it's out thx
no picture of black hole that is insinvisible
jedenzet what it looks like*
Not ‘how.’
How does the black hole loose mass because of hawking radiation? Would it not gain mass instead?
freeman239 interesting and not obvious question as well as answer. When the negative or positive particle falls inside and the other twin falls outside a tiny portion of energy is lost to the black hole. Energy equals mass and thus it starts to evaporate. What was a virtual particle becomes an actual particle because it remains long enough to generate a field, (depending on what actual partial it is) and it’s twin when absorbed becomes inconsolable and doesn’t annihilate causes a net loss to the energy of the local environment, (the black hole).
As I understand it, it is the gravirational energy of the black hole that causes the virtual particles generated by the vacuum of spacetime at the right place at the right time to become real. And because it only keeps one for the price of creating two it looses energy. But I could be wrong, and if I am not my description is crude and incomplete 🙂
@@john-paulsilke893 I see. The black hole lose energy/mass to produce a real particle from a virtual particle. It is like a cost to make a virtual particle real.
if its at random wouldn't it just balance out, as one or the other falls in and one is left outside of the black hole, the one outside would eventually hit one of the opposite charge, same for the ones falling in?
So only one of the virtual pair gets to live...the other evaporates and steals energy from its surroundings aka the black hole.
I wonder if what we keep calling "dark matter" is actually just a sea of micro black holes that make up the medium of space. What if space is made of micro black holes in the same way that the oceans are made of water? That might explain a lot about dark matter anomalies like the way the galaxies manage to hold together with some kind of unseen mass.
Looks like young Elon Musk 😂
Great videos bro 😉
And acts like one.
True
young elon was dicking around shitty iphones instead of doing or learning anything useful, no wonder he is half braindead by now
@therealnightwriter thats your seeing. But in real life, you would never say that. You wont just go outside and scream "ELON MUSK IN A LYING GATE KEEPER SHILL TURD LIAR".
oh and also r/wooosh
Don't say he looks like a young Elon Musk. He can't help any resemblance he may have to that monster. Well, he could make his hair look different. But it's like those cats that people say look like Hitler, just because their coloration is a little bit unfortunate.
Maybe you can straighten this out for me: The way I understand it, virtual particle pairs that pop in and out of existence can be basically anything as long as sum of their parts total up to zero, zero charge, zero spin and zero mass. Wouldn't this mean, for one of the particles to have normal mass/energy, the other one must have negative energy to zero the pair out? If this is the case, in virtual pairs near an event horizon of a black hole, wouldn't the negative particle be very strongly repelled by the black hole, while "normal" particle would be strongly attracted and over time wouldn't this cause black holes to actually gain mass over time while increasing negative mass in the rest of the universe (thus accelerating how fast things move apart from each other)? I know my idea is unconventional but I've never had anyone give me a satisfactory answer as to why this wouldn't be the case.
Hate to necro a years old comment but virtual particles are more a mathematical tool than anything to simulate how interactions with particles work, it’s an abstraction of a real process, in the real processes while energy is still exchanged, virtual particles are never really generated, there is no pop in and out of existence, there’s only real particles, that is just a model and it’s generated a lot of confusion IMOs
My brain must have been the perfect size because it definitely just evaporated trying to contemplate these "microsplosions."
you are the youtube version of me!! i love this type of science!! and i love explaining stuff like this to my friends, even if they don't! lol
I am struggling to get my head round some of this!
Gravity increases as an inverse of the distance squared (I think) so this micro black hole inside your body would pull surrounding atoms into it! Even if the mass of the black hole was reduced drastically because of the minimal distances involved would the force still not be huge?
Another aspect I do not understand is .... When matter approaches a black hole it is accelerated towards it. If enough of these particles are involved they will collide and generate heat and even radiation (so looking toward a black hole you would see a shell of energy rich matter radiating in all wavelengths .... a bit like a star!) At what stage (if any) would this outward pressure stop matter getting dragged down the gravity well, or even noticeably slowed?
If you had a black hole that was fed matter from one direction it would spin. Enough spin and it would deform to form an oblate sphere. More and it would form a torus! Would this spinning torus have any unusual properties?
You may be surprised that it is not easy to find information at this level as a non academic ;0)
I bought Universe Sandbox and downloaded Space Engine because of you. Great tools of science to learn and play with. Best appreciated on your channel. I click on these videos so fast.
Yeah, so the holographic principle involves how information is conserved. We actually know a lot about black holes thanks to GR and QT. We know that they contain most of the universe's entropy, and that entropy is proportional to the surface area of the BH. We know that as you approach the gravitational singularity in the center of the BH that there are no longer any circular geodesics, and radially inward becomes the only available direction. It's completely 1 dimensional. So the conjecture involving the holographic principle states that the information going into the BH simultaneously falls in, but is also stored along the horizon. Analogous to how holographic film stores information. Which is different than how a photograph stores information. The thought occured that if this can be applied to the horizon of a BH then it may also apply to the particle horizon of the universe. It's mathematically rigorous, but it seems consistent and appears to be the only thing at the moment that makes sense.
@Deven Swanson I watch a lot of lectures and read a lot of published scientific papers in math and physics. You have to make sure that you fulfill the prerequesites. As long as you understand Calculus then you can learn Classical Mechanics. With General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics there are more advanced types of algebras that you need to be familiar with. Black Hole physics and Conformal Field Theories are usually written in Lie Group Algebras such as Virasoro Algebra.
This video made me question, is it possible for light to orbit a black hole instead of being consumed by it? I'd like to think it can, but I'm not too sure about it.
Photons orbit bh. Mostly radiowa es that are even able to pass through tha acration Disc. Some Photons Fall in, some orbit bh and some are slingshoot by bh gravity and travel to us(bh Photo)
What weird phenomena was experienced by the satellite can anybody forward a link to that info? I am curious.
This one came up in my feed just today, but it is from LAST December. I love the little Einstein-like Professor Petrov in the corner.
Fascinating info about black holes. Black holes are crazy.
And as always... bye bye!
-- cracks me up every time.
A wonderfull person in HD !
Micro black hole : cleanest energy available .... to a class 3 civilisation it is
Black holes for energy, isn't that Romulan technology? Haha
or the hirojen communication stations throughout the delta quadrant in voyager
My fav channel still after all this time
When they reach the planck scale and become massless, I propose that they slip through our spacetime, and out of our universe into a place where they are no longer constrained and thus explode into a new spacetime.
that was a genius level comment
infinite heat, singularity aka plank length, releases energy
perfect candidate for a new reality creating big bang
neffdigity dog It just seems like a logical explanation, unfortunately I'm not versed in the math enough to formulate it
Or they slip through spacetime into this universe, but in the past, when it started and it exploded, and so on and so on... Is there any scientist on this planet that actually believes that humans one day will find some kind of terminal/final explanation of why the universe works as it works? Seems impossible to me - not without making up stories of gods, etc.
@@LeelooMinai Yeah that would result in the big bang, if it was once a singularity which came from another parent universe. I believe at some fundamental level the complete theory is unknowable. Since we are humans inside the universe, and if the universe is treated as a system, one would have to experiment in a way that access something beyond the universe in order to know exactly how it works. That doesn't mean we can't come up with mathematical theories which seem to describe what we see and follow that line of reasoning further.
I disagree. Because there is hidden law for space and time.
Anton, you rule dude. Stellar videos!!
Been watching yoyr videos a while. Really imformatize and relaxed presentation style. Thabks
Anton, this is an older video, and I doubt you still police the many comments...but I have a few questions. Does what the black hole consumes influence its lifespan? Either way, if this black hole were to commute to a star, at its surface or inside of it, what would this do? My imagination allows for too many possibilities including an exploding star...but my big problem is with what happens to all of the matter a black hole consumes throughout its life. If you have a dying multi-billion year old black hole...how is it possible that it could disappear, or convert all of this matter to energy without being the most powerful and dangerous force we could observe? I am amazed by reality. The extreme scales of things are the most interesting, and your page feeeeds my need for information. thank you.
Anton, you need a warmer light source. You're looking too "goth". With your black hair, the cool blue light makes you look very pale.
Goth isn't a bad look but at the start of the video I thought he might've been a little under the weather
GOTH ASTRONOMY
@@Chris5685 Lmao 😂
get some more light from the 1700-3300k range and more lumens. I predict your eyes have real color too!
Well, while I agree in general. He could use a lighting upgrade.
He is talking about Black Holes so... kinda fitting. :)
Anton - a subscriber here - I'd like to point somethingg out - while a micro black hole certainly could pass through a human body without any serious gravitational disruption (at least according to our best knowledge), there certainly could be extremely ill effects from the Hawking radiation. IIRC, according to our modelling, the last several years of the hole's existance, it is emitting about 4.7 terawatts of energy continuously. One thousand years before the hole's demise, the energy output is still quite considerable.
Mini black holes are the basis for the most effective power plant conceivable by modern science. exdeeding even what may be obtained from antimatter (considerable energy may be harvested from matter entering a black hole.Later, considerable energy can be harvested from rediation emetted as the hole evaporates. Considerable rotational energy may also be harvested. The combination is in excess of the 100% conversion to energy of antimatter and matter).
Really enjoying the content great topics that are very interesting.
Im really high right now and the way you explain things with the visuals make it easy for me to follow..Definitely a subscriber today!😆
so an evaporating black hole becomes basically a planck sized white hole?
this is a genius comment
It kinda behaves like one
So small?! Holy
If true that can cause mini big bangs...
@neffdigity
If by whitehole you mean the precise opposite of a black hole. (i.e. instead of being impossible to escape, it becomes impossible to get inside).
It wouldn't get quite that far. Lots of energy being released for sure, but not enough that forcibly entering the evaporating black hole would be impossible.
Excellent work anton 👍
We're you ever a little bit sick when you were a kid and then started feeling like everything around you was massive? That's how I'm starting to feel watching this lol
Alice in wonderland syndrome!
@@brittneyyyann I never knew that it had a name! Thanks :)
@@Achonas No problem! I used to get it when I was little too, and now I get it when I have a migraine. Such an odd feeling!
@@brittneyyyann I almost never get it now. TBH i kinda miss it for some reason lol
How can you not be impressed with an individual with so much knowledge!
Just imagine all that energy coming out at once though...
Imagine we tried to use it for energy, but weren't able to contain it well enough.
*aliens find our radioactive rubble somewhere past Neptune*
Nice straight-forward explanation! Really enjoy your videos. Please keep it up.
My question now is do micro-black holes exist right now? Black holes take so long to shrink and the only natural way they form is by compressing the cores of giant stars. The smallest naturally occuring black holes are about the size of a city and will most likely stay that way until the entire universe cools down, since they'll just keep sucking up more energy and growing in mass if the surrounding vaccuum is hotter than the inside of a black hole.
There may be primordial black holes. These are candidates for the seeds of supermassive black holes, such as the one at the center of our galaxy, and of dark matter (although a weak candidate that LIGO has ruled out quite convincingly). Some might exist, and they might be any size that is large enough to not decay until present day.
There is no evidence for black holes. Its just a flawed theory.
how do you figure... also the universe is not going to cool down, but crush into itself, a thing that is supposed to happen in like a ridiculous number of years ( something like a few hundreds millionis (1.million, 2. billions 3. trillions..... 100. insert whatever the name is.
We can't use BH for energy unless containing them and as you said they evaporate fast so we can't use them to store it either.
Remember that nothing is createdd or destroyed and that everything changes; it means that to have infinite energy, despit eof converting mass into energy, you have to give in infinite energy.
So answer me this: how many tiny and super tiny and micro black holes would need to be interspersed throughout interstellar space to account for “dark matter” and “dark energy??”
I can't provide any references at the moment, without becoming significantly less lazy than i am at present. HOWEVER, this question HAS been addressed in various RUclips videos. Upshot: pretty unanimous concensus among astrophysicists that unseen black holes don't seem to be contributing very much to the mass of the universe - and Dark Matter behaves quite differently than normal matter or the mass inside black holes. So far as Dark Energy, its something else entirely: it cannot be simulated by black holes, no matter how many.
how does the black hole lose mass if a particle falls in. If any thing it should gain that particles mass
It's just what I wonder myself, it woudl be nice to have some explanation of this.
@@abakanazer I guess that the gravitational energy of the black hole is spent in making two virtual particles real, but it only captures one of them.
How is it losing mass if it's gaining a virtual particle?
That's my question too. Also, what becomes of the other virtual particle that escapes the event horizon?
The other virtual particle becomes an actual particle whether it is a negative or positive particle. The universe abhors this and conserves this the black hole loses a tiny bit of energy. Now if it is a negative particle it will encounter a positive particle and thus annihilate and the black hole will regain that mass
Just for fun and because it breaks my head; massless particles must travel at the speed of light and thus don’t experience time. That means any light that hits us from the Big Bang, (it has since shifted into xrays) is the same age as when it started nearly 14 billion years ago.
Virtual particles pops in and out of existence
The particle lost is always an anti-matter particle, the matter particle escapes. When the anti-matter joins with the black hole, it annihilates some of its mass.
Black holes don’t care about matter or anti-matter. It feeds on either with equal aplomb.
My two cents : the theory of micro black holes also state that if they evaporate, they disappear after a few billion years, likely around 14, which is in fact approximately the age of the universe as we know it, so it is very possible that we did not see them yet (detect the "final explosion") only because it's a bit too early
If there is a constant amount of virtual particles created per a volume of space, then there should be more particles going into more massive black hole, because it will have a horizon of greater size. If we assume that the analogy with virtual particles actually works.
It has to do with curvature.
I just think virtual particles be more effective through space time expansion the faster space gets the more atoms are summon in the existence.
@@Zorro9129 why
@@DeusEversor Curved space tends to produce more virtual particles, and smaller black holes with a smaller radius curve space much more. Don't ask me how I know.
The problem about virtual particles is that it is requires less mass for these to come into existence. The less mass a object gets the more stuff gets summoned in existence. Which where spacetime expansion comes in handy when there are vast voids Or white holes
The equation c^2 = J/K applies to black holes.When the temperature is high enough the fundamental forces are said to merge. At lower temperatures the Energy to temperature dependance is much more complicated.
At the end of the universe when the black holes with trillions of mass of the sun die, it'd be so incredibly bright we could never comprehend it. 1 trillion masses of the sun converted to pure energy.
That's not how it works. All black hole evaporations will be exactly the same, as the evaporation rate depends on mass. It'll be like a star that gets brighter and brighter until it's nuclear blast levels of bright, and suddenly, pop, imagine a nuclear blast that then explodes.
Thing is, it's not very impressive cosmologically. Impossible to detect at cosmic distances, even, but that's actually good. Keeping them at the proper level of mass will give us essentially a mass to energy power plant.
I love ur videos my man, keep them up u inspire my visions. I have had many visions
hello wonderful anton this is petrov
Full disclaimer I study Biology so a lot of this stuff is pretty foreign to me. I have a question though. I feel like I can kind of grasp the idea of virtual particles. And I also get the concept that if virtual particles generate too close to the event horizon then one virtual particle can get sucked in while the other particle actually escapes and becomes a real (non-virtual?) particle. However what I still cannot grasp is how the virtual particle that is entering the event horizon causes the black hole to lose mass over time? That seems counterintuitive to what's happening. Shouldn't the black hole be gaining mass over time due to the absorption of the particles? I know there's something here I'm not understanding and it's prolly basic af.
So if a mini black hole exploded on earth, we would all die.
freeman239 happens all the time and so far it hasn’t killed us all yet. They dissolve far faster then the can consume so they shuffle loose their “mortal” coil and go quickly into nothingness. (A bit poetic and not exactly correct but you get the point). It’s kinda like artificially creating a critical mass and causing a fission reaction. It doesn’t continue unchecked because the fissile materials are consumed too fast for the to runaway into fusion and burst into a small star. The materials just aren’t dense enough much like trying to start a camp fire by putting a stick every 10,000 miles and expecting a single match to burn across the gap.
It is so dense and so small that can't interact with our atoms, so we are safe. Even they pass through our body just like neutroinos coming from stars and we feel nothing. We need bigger but still small black hole to create a considerable explosion and use it for energy(and maybe for military purposes).
@@Omisis046 DARPA wants to know your location. 😂
Probably
You've literally said the exact opposite of what this video just explained. Both comments, Troll harder.
I like the longer hair! It makes you look so young, Anton.
I really enjoy your videos. But, Steven Hawking was wrong for, "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could."
I'm with you and the rest(or most) of the physics community on this
Hawking was wrong, and he knew he was wrong. He was working on correcting his mistake, sadly he died without the chance to redeem him self
The total heat death of the universe is possibly the most terrifying notion imaginable
I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly know this.
We don’t know
Nobody knows anything
if you have a "virtual particle" that separates from its co-particle and thus both becomes a real particle, where one goes into the black hole and the other just kinda screws off, doesn't that mean the black hole gained one particle of mass, how did it lose mass from this
You should do a video of what you would actually see if you fell into a supermassive black hole.
As far I know black holes dont suck things in. You will most likely be flung away. But correct me if I'm wrong.
@@Hawky610 They attract things with mass just like any other massive body. Why would anyone be "flung away"?
He's done one.
The process is called 'spaghettification'. That's where your atoms get stretched and compressed the closer you get. Like if you were heading in nose-first, the atoms at the tip of your nose would be leaving your face faster than the rest of your face will. Even your atoms get stretched and compressed - right down to sub-atomic particles. Then whatever reaches the event horizon gets destroyed down to x-rays, gamma rays and the like. Then gets jetted out on the poles in a particle stream. You would be converted to radiation and expelled out across the void many light years.
Black holes have the same gravitational pull as it did before it became a black hole. So for example if Jupiter became a black hole, it wouldn't have any gravitational differences to it which would effect Earth. The radiation would fry Earth though.
@@W1se0ldg33zer exactly, stretching and crush might be happening faster than breaking of bonds on any level: biological, chemical, atomic, sub atomic etc. It would , in a fluid boundless way covert you into background radiation or anything simpler of kind, before you'd get into singularity... there nothing matter anymore :) although, interesting thought arises, is your conciousness going to shut down long before, or will the process occur so "fast", "you" "will" "conciously" "experience" "it" "before" "death" "?"... a planck cat? Schrodingers conciousnes
The universe is so strange. When enough star stuff comes together such that its gravity prevents the emission of light, a black hole is suddenly created. Somehow, when it evaporates to the same point, you don't get a sudden creation of a star. Apparently it's sudden in one direction and gradual in the other. The universe is so strange.
You look like elon musk's secret cousin
Knowing Elon Musk, Anton would probably be his clone.. One of them anyway
Secret...haha
difference being elon is a twat.
Why is there so many Elon haters here
@@thegrunch6448 theres literally one here
I really enjoy your chanel. Your passion for making these videos snd educating us really shows and makes you priceless.
I always thought we have micro black holes that fly down to Earth and eat people. That's why people go missing and can't ever be found. =p
@Alexander E02 Ha! Good one.
I love this channel. Thank you for making them. I love learning and I love this kind of stuff
05:30 - We can call it "The Michael Jackson effect"
Yes.
I don't understand this. Why does it loose mass? In the animation from 2:20 it clearly shows that the black hole gets mass and not looses it. THe particles are created outside the event horizon. One goes into the black hole and one goes away. The black hole gets one particle more and not one less because there aren't any particles that are travelling from the inside out.
Do more universe sandbox please like if u want him to make more
Thanks for likes
On a side note:
These particles do not pop into, and out of, existence from a literal/absolute "Nothing".
But rather, they come from underlying quantum foam. Remember E=mc^2
Check out Isaac Arthur's YT channel for more on this kind of stuff. :)
Man Isaac's topics are so far out!! One of the best channels in RUclips IMO. 👍
What I see at the end of this ultra-small bh is an almost plank length sized object that is releasing a very large amount of energy from a very small object. That means the emitted energy will be very massive and since the emission can only be at light speed the mass continues to go up and the resultant particles created from the massive energy release means all forces become unified. All four forces. A particle will be involved to cover this unification.
*Warning: all this is purely theoretical!*
I for one doubt Hawking (and the bandwagon) on this, because: (1) there's no empirical evidence whatsoever, (2) it's based on reasonings of enthropy that are fundamental to *classical* thermodynamics but that only consider the outside of the black hole and not the inside of it. I.e. the reasoning is: enthropy must (statistically) increase and Hawking radiation breaches this principle for the whole Universe, hence the black hole must somehow pay for that and thus lose mass and evaporate. However the same is true for the black hole: enthropy increases inside it because there's also Hawking radiation falling in and thus, following the same logic, the external universe should "pay its debt" by evaporating.
My guess is that just neither happens, that thermodynamics is not that absolutely universal, much less considering statistic likelihood and nothing else is what is behind the principle of ever-growing enthropy and that this does not apply to other singularities like the Big Bang. What does seem likely is that (conjectured) plank-sized black holes would be extremely volatile because of quantum uncertainty, but such thing has never ever been observed even if they are trying hard in the LHC over there at Geneva.
Should "Pay it's debt" wrong grammar buddy. You should've said ', "Pay its debt", .
Aren't we supposed to not mix science on a macroscopic level with something like cosmic science of particle physics?
@@xsavagegamer7732 - You're right, grammar nazi but correct nonetheless. It was a honest typo, I do know correct, just that my autopilot sometimes doesn't.
@@gobblefunkfrothbungler8948 - Tell that to Hawking, LOL. He didn't just mix both but also used a hack for that, so it's not even theoretically too solid, yet he got all that fame for that reason.
And I still like Hawking a lot but I disagree with jumping to conclusions based ONLY on a hack to overcome our lack of a unified theory, and then not being able to prove it empirically. To this day Hawking radiation and its alleged evaporation effects remain a crude theory, there's not a single piece of evidence backing that.
But still we must mix macro and micro if we want to unify, even if Hawking would be wrong he still did the right thing in trying to overcome our theoretical limitations, actually all QFT is, with its many limitations, where macro and micro, GR and QM, overlap at our current (and rather stagnant) state of knowledge.
If we are to find a TOE, we would need to understand how mass generates gravity (or maybe how lack of mass generates anti-gravity, there's a new theory suggesting that's what actually happens and attempting to explain both dark energy and dark matter that way, I find it very intriguing even if I only understand it very shallowly), we know how quantum fields (mostly the gluon field) generate mass but we still do not understand how that mass/energy curves spacetime, that's the gordian knot of a unified theory.
It's really not that hard to understand, bud. But if you want to make it into more than it is, go nuts and let your imagination run wild! You never know who the next Hawking is... or sorry someone who isn't on a "bandwagon".
Just found your channel through this video and gotta say fantastic job at explaining!
So if the virtual particles do have mass, then when they fall into the black hole, they should actually increase its mass.
It takes more energy for these virtual particles to pop into existence, so they actually lose the energy-mass of one virtual particle each time.
Virtual particles last only long enough not to contradict the conservation of energy. When they do violate this law, the universe steps in to set the balance sheet and thus the black hole loses mass. Also if the particle that escapes is a negative one and it later a annihilates the black hole will regain its lost mass.
made pretty fuckin easy to understand for the simple explanation
particle1 + particle2 = ParticleX , this entire process gets its energy from the black hole itself
1 + 1 = 2
if particle1 escapes and particle2 falls into the black hole, the black hole gets only half the energy back it invested to create the ParticleX which never gets to exist
Anton keep doing what your doing!!
i prefer gravity well over the name black hole, as it is a better description of what it is.
Gravity hole :^)
i prefer calling it ,,ies-zone,, ies=
(I)n(ES)capable
cuz inescapable-zone is a bit long so. ies-zone (i pronounce it as ,,i-s-zone,, like instead of e theres a space)
Edit:please dont ask
thats not how that shit works
Some people believe that ball lightning is tiny black holes of various types that evaporate or sometimes explode.
IT OVER 9000!!!
Buddy Holly 👀
A star is a gas that is so massive it begins to crush and split atoms. A black hole is when there is too much mass before hand and now the fusion process can’t happen because it’s crushing the atoms so bad that they loose the electrons. The matter inside is a non Newtonian liquid of subatomic particles. The reason a star cannot enter instantly is that they’re in different states.
Ever heard of a punchable face? Know what that means!?
Your is not punchable. Your face is kissable. Gib hug pls.
How is a black hole cold? What with all that rapidly swirling matter that makes up the accretion disk, and all that energy compressed together, you'd think it would have to be super hot?
Another superb video mate
ok, simple and stupid question: "how exactly does the black hole lose mass if one of the particle fall inside and one escapes?"... shouldn't the black hole actually gain mass over time assuming this theory? (that particles are appearing at the event horizon, not inside the black hole itself).
particle1 + particle2 = ParticleX , this entire process gets its energy from the black hole itself
1 + 1 = 2
if particle1 escapes and particle2 falls into the black hole, the black hole gets only half the energy back it invested to create the ParticleX which never gets to exist
@@felixmustermann790 So, half of the energy spent on creating particlex will be lost by the blackhole. Can this energy be calculated assuming you know the blackhole mass and spin? thus calculating how fast is evaporating?
My question on this subject is that if the virtual particles splitting, one going into the black hole and the other leaving the black hole, how is adding a single particle the cause of it to decay? I would think adding a particle to the black hole would if anything keep it going at a minimum if not help reduce it's decaying process.
Well, he made the statement that a blackhole is the only thing that can reach infinite energy. Considering that the space around the blackhole has to reach near absolute zero, I'd say this points to the moment when all the blackholes have merged into one, that one has eventually evaporated to the point where it reaches near infinite energy but can no longer maintain its "blackholeness" BOOM, a new big bang.
Question: how is a black hole cold on the inside if it ate the core of a star when it was formed? I'd just expect the heat would be kept along with the gravity. Physics like this are a big bite for me to get a grasp on, so please help an ingoramus out?
When those rockets started connecting with each other, I loled hard haha
maybe universe sandbox breaks the laws of everything
universe sandbox: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
That's weird: the particle moving inside the black hole actually makes it heavier, so I wouldn't call that evaporation. The escaping particle is not what we get from the black hole, but from vacuum
12:28 if u remove time dilation and put micro black holes, then time dilation theory would be wrong or not used ???
So at what stage do black holes stop "feeding" that is, absorbing matter?
Why does the black hole lose mass? Is not the amount of virtual particles leaving the black hole the same as virtual particles entering the event horizon? What am I getting wrong?
Great video, my friend. Love your work!
Are these micro black holes the source of the dark matter question?