I remember finding your early videos when I was 14-15. I’m now about to start a BS physics degree (though I already have an AS in math, so it’ll just be a 2-3 year thing for me). It’s nice to know that these videos helped drive me to where I currently am. Thanks.
I'm about to finish my bs in physics (I'm a little off schedule because of covid, so I have 3 courses left, and 2 more semesters). But physics is a great choice. Not sure how the job opportunities are with only a bs, but I love learning all of this stuff.
Dr. Vivian Robinson pinpointed math mistake that led to theoretical Black Holes. Event horizon does not exist actually - it appeared due to a simple math blunder. "Nearly Black Holes" - term introduced by Eric Lerner, plasma physicist, - exist: they have magnetic field like normal or neutron stars have, and have strong time dilation around - that burns cosmic rays and particles, and other things explained in my Time Matters. As for "light cannot escape" see chapter 1 on Snell's law. Chapter 11 explains radiation around nearly black holes, around/in galaxy centers/bulges, what is going on in Fermilab.
It still seems to be a Misnomer to call Ultra compressed matter, energy, and space time a 'hole'. If all things are eventually sucked into one super sized black hole, you basically get the infinite point of all energy at the start of the Big Bang. And perhaps POP! it all just happens all over again.
@@SeaJay_Oceans big bang seems like the logical opposite of a black hole anyways. The black hole is a point in space where (within the event horizon) all paths through space end up at. Big bang is a point in space which you can never reach, as all points in space and time are expanding away from it.
The way physics is taught in schools and colleges is so pathetic, we are made to focus only on formulas to solve numerical problems which makes students lose their interest from the subject, but few people like Mr.Eugene have kept our curiosity alive. Great video as always. Thankyou 🙂
Would you please do a video on the large scale expansion of the Universe? I struggle to understand what an accelerating rate of expansion means for the Observable Universe. Will we see more, older galaxies as time goes on, or fewer galaxies?
It means we will see fewer galaxies. I cover the expansion of the Universe in the following videos. ruclips.net/video/IFdfrtzo4SY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/g1WU35KxLrA/видео.html
Your videos are so good, too bad that RUclips decided to forbid users from making subtitles for a videos they don't own, most of my friends here in Brazil used mine for understanding your videos.
This can still be done through email. If you want to submit new subtitles, please send me an email indicating which video you want to translate, and I will email you the subtitle file in English (which includes the timings). You will then be able to edit the file to replace the English with the translation, and then email the file back to me. I will then upload it to my channel. My email address is available in the "about" tab of my home page, if you view it on a PC. Thanks.
love the videos eugene, helped me a lot with some concepts i just couldn't wrap my head around. would love to see one on transmission lines and antennas
Fantastic to see new content will have to check out Patreon. Like how this video ties concepts from previous videos and gives a new perspective on black holes for a normal person like me.
This is amazing!! Thank you for the always amazing explanations. I also just saw a video from PBS spacetime mentioning how black holes in string theory are fuzzballs. Incredibly Interesting stuff.
3:46 I have a small question about this: In real life, as a black hole gets more mass, its event horizon expands; so in such a case, will the distant observer see the falling object crossing the expanding event horizon slowly, or would they see the object slowing moving outward with the expanding event horizon?
yes but in the newly formed gaps, caused by the further expansion, caused by the new mass falling into the black hole, there is the new information (or image/pucture) of said mass. long story short: as with anything black hole related, the reality of it is much more complicated than other oversimplified model can show. e.g. most blackholes aren't perfect spheres + they spin extremely fast + other weird effects.
@@GuRuGeorge03 a spinning hole 🕳 sounds awesome 👌 It's hard to wrap my head around all of this stuff. I've been watching videos like this since I was a young kid watching the original Carl Sagan cosmos series on vhs.
The event horizon expands just a tiny little bit. You won't see an effect there. Falling objects freeze in time and fade way as wave lengths gets stretched.
Incredible video! A unified theory so we can understand the centre of black holes would be amazing! Are there any current theories you prefer or do you not like any of them?
spacetime close to a black hole is so warped that - every spatial direction points more and more towards the center of the black hole, till every direction points to the inside. - the time-dimension gets shorter and shorter (the speed of time slows town to a near-stop) When the black hole spins (fast enough), this area is surrounded by a more turbulent ergosphere, with more turbulent spacetime arrows, that can be "sailed" trough and escaped (with a lot of good timing and energy use), and that can theoretically be used to throw mass into the black hole in a close flyby through the ergosphere to gain a LOT of momentum AWAY from the black hole (and easily reaching escape velocity)
Finally somebody did a video representation with the space grid in time! I have a question: there are 4 regions where the grid looks a lot more scarce than it is in other areas (on diagonals of some sort) - is this a limitation of the visualisation, some kind of aliasing, or is it how the space is curved in reality too? And the second question: each white dot of the grid gets really curved as it gets closer to the singularity - so is it a "pixel" of space that gets curved like this or is it the object in the space that gets curved?
In reply to your first question, this was just due to a limitation in my animation technique. It should be radially symmetrical. I am not sure I understand your second question. It is space-time which is curved.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky I think the base answer of space-time becoming curved would help answer that both the "pixel", or better described as differential element, in that point of space time becoming curved would result in any object which enters into this new element or "pixel" would conform to the physics of that point. Thinking in larger perspective would presume an object that exists in greater area than the element would see its own changing curvature as the physics influencing the object would cause the matter of the object to conform the physics of each point it exists, causing the object itself to curve. This would even be true on earth, as every differential point on an object is subject to different magnitudes of forces, but in a blackhole everything is extremely magnified. This really only holds up to a point to where the gravitational forces and influence of radiation would allow the bonds to still exist, as the object would no longer become an object, but breakdown into its base components. This is just my 2 cents at 5am, but I think the logic is mildly sound without getting into overly complicated physics in a comment and having to bring high level mathematics and physics theory into it.
Imagine our visible universe is falling into a MASSIVE universe-size black hole. Could that explain the seeming space expansion we observe (being the stretching effect of falling into a hole)? Or would it only make expansion non-radial from every point, but accross an axis? Is it possible to calculate, if it was the case, how it would look to us and if its matching what we observe?
Great video! Do we have any hypothesis about what happens to subatomic particle when they fall into a black hole. Like there should be a point where the gravitational gradient is strong enough to overcome the strong force holding quarks together. Edit: replace field -> gradient
honestly one of the most informative videos ive seen on black holes. its surprising how ive heard so many people talk about black holes, but have never understood what people mean by "singularity" and "infinite density" until now.
Great animation! One question though : what does it mean for space time to 'fall into' something? How can the spacetime itself move? If it does move, then where does it move, in a higher dimensional space?
I did not realize that it was spacetime itself that was falling into the black hole. Now I wonder if when we see the universe expand, if looked at from another perspective, it could be the average of all spacetime falling into all existing balck holes? So, the universe would be expanding into black holes, and since there are so many of them, and they are scattered all throughout the universe, it could look like either the universe is expanding, or the universe is falling into its black holes. The universe expanding and contracting infinitely and simultaneously. ?
The expansion of the universe as a whole happens with the same rate everywhere at any given " moment" of its cosmic history, and its acceleration due to the cosmological constant seems to be the same also wherever we look. Our universe is approximately homogeneous and isotropic, at least when we're talking about very big scales. It's not the same with black holes: The spacetime geometry of a collapsing star that forms a black hole is not isotropic. The curvature and the tidal forces grow as one comes closer, and inside the horizon they become time dependent, so everything that falls in is doomed. The interior of any black hole is indeed growing, so that older black holes have larger interiors, but this expansion is very different from the expansion of the universe.
Me encantan los vídeos de Eugene porque son muy ilustrativos hasta para personas como yo que valoramos todo tipo de aprendizaje aun sin tener los estudios pertinentes. Me gustaría que los tradujesen al español. Gracias.
If spacetime is constantly being pulled more and more down into blackholes, could the even, constant, expansion of spacetime everwhere else in the universe be caused by said blackholes? Like multiple people all pulling down on a cloth, stretching it?
This video actually makes sense to me! I've watched many,, many shows (and read papers and articles) about black holes and I just figured that the science of black holes was just beyond my feeble understanding. The way this is presented is very logical and understandable. Thank you!
Thanks for the compliment about my video. Perhaps I may make a video on that in the future, but this is just due to the way the mathematics of the coordinate system is defined, rather than an actual physical phenomenon.
Awesome. I too reached that point of time stretching near black hole and light never reaches to an observer who is outside. For the observer whi is outside, the object is still travelling in black hole for infinite time.
Could you make a playlist with all the *orchestral* (edit) works you use in your videos? Some of them are kinda hard to find. Thanks for all the work you put in your videos
I'm used to thinking of spacetime as a static manifold described by a metric. You seem to be saying we can also think of spacetime as pieces of space being "dragged around" overtime. Is there a way to mathematically formally size this?
The visual was showing a static spacetime, and the "draging" was representing the flow of time, but the shape of spacetime was not changing. It does get changed over time if a black hole is moving or being formed, of course.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky If I've understood correctly, David's perspective could be valid if you were releasing these videos near a black hole, and David was a distant observer.
An object on the event horizon does not “appear frozen” to us. As the object approaches the horizon, not only the photons it emits are more and more redshifted, but fewer and fewer photons per time unit manage to reach us. So the object not only appears redder and slower, but also darker, and when it’s sufficiently near the horizon it doesn’t “freeze” - rather it disappears, as we are unable to detect any signal coming from it. Apart from this, excellent work!
What you wrote does not contradict what is shown in the video. If each arrow represents a photon, then I show fewer and fewer photons arriving, in both reference frames. Thanks.
Wormholes are on my list of topics for future videos. By the way, wormholes are not known to exist. If they did exist, then time travel would be possible.
I've always disliked the paradigm described in the subtitle at 1:35, which posits the existence of a point mass of infinite density (singularity) at the center of a BH that is also separate and distinct from the event horizon that surrounds it, and whose inner boundary terminates at the Schwarzchild Radius. My question is WHY do we need to embrace the assumption of a singularity at all ? Doing that basically poops the bedsheets, in a mathematical sense, and once pooped it's hard to up-poop them (i.e., cancel out the infinities). I have a different spin on Black Holes (pun intended). Einstein showed us that matter and energy are different sides of the same proverbial coin, and also that gravitational mass and the warpage of spacetime are as well. Taken together, that would seem to ELIMINATE the need for a black hole's mass to be attributed to an unseen point mass located at the center of the schwarzchild radius, because since matter and energy are equivalent; and since gravitational mass and the warpage of spacetime are equivalent, it seems to follow that the mass of a black hole IS THE DISTORTION IT EXERTS ON SPACETIME. Just like a whirlpool in a river or a bathtub has no point mass driving it, it seems to me that a black hole, once birthed, does not need a singularity to maintain/explain it. Put another way, maybe the hole isnt a consequence of something ... maybe the black hole itself IS the phenomenoa, and the interior does not even exist. Consider a warp in spacetime as being an energy phenomenoa in and of itself ... the greater the mass, the greater the schwarzchild radius (SR). As matter in the event horizon reaches the SR, it shreds and changes state into energy - some of it escapes as high energy radiation, and the rest gets added to the increasing warpage in spacetime (re: the hole), which per Einstein is indistinguishable from an increase in mass/matter. Bottom line: i'm inclined to think the mass of a black hole IS the energy inherent in the spacetime warpage it manifests as, plus the combined matter energy and inertia present in the event horizon that's orbiting it and/or accreting onto it. Also, I'm not convinced black holes "spin" in a physical sense - rather, any effects that appear as spin are just a consequence of the warpage of spacetime, along with the motion and changes in state of matter and energy in the event horizon, as they accelerate at relatavistic speeds towards their eventual encounter with the schwarzchild boundary. In other words, black holes do have a movement vector, and things do spin around them at incredible speeds (including light), but the hole itself does not spin. Anyway, that's my $0.02 on Black Holes. I'm not an astrophysicist, so take all that handwaving with a grain of salt, and a grin. Cheers.
Breakdown of objects due to tidal forces does not require situations as extreme as a black hole. Assume you take a bucket of ping pong balls into Earth orbit and remove the bucket. Initially the balls will stay next to each other in their orbit (by inertia and by the extremely weak binding force between them) but given enough time, and assuming we can ignore other factors like solar wind, the cluster will be stretched and eventually broken by Earth’s own tidal forces.
Because time slows at the EH it will take the age of the universe for it to transit and head toward the center of mass. I assert that a BH is solid. Comprised of mass stuck at the point of crossing the EH and later mass freezing just above. Nothing ever makes it to the “center” of the BH. Mass cannot continue to migrate towards the center as it's frozen in time from the perspective of an outside observer -- it would take the age of the universe to reach the center of mass.
The velocity of the grid seems to match that of a particle dropped from infinity. The color at each point in time seems to be a cycle of a constant period between black and white. The only thing which varies over space is the phase. The texture is mapped onto Flamm's paraboloid.
Matter & energy move from higher to lower energy density region of space. The difference in energy density produces a force field directed from higher to lower energy density region. Since black hole pulls matter & energy its center must be a region of minimum energy density or Empty.
Do you think it would be accurate/possible to describe what takes place in an around a Black Hole in terms of Entropy, and avoid talking about time? I think Einstein was right when he referred to the distinction between past, present and future as only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Time in GR is a coordinate, very clear and geometric. Entropy, on the other hand, is a very poorly defined thing, much harder to reason about objectively.
ok but anyone else notice that if you stare at something else (like your computer keyboard) after watching this video that you start hallucinating that its doing the same thing as in the animation?
I mean it surely looks like the object is torn apart, but from the perspective of the object wouldnt it look like all space around the object is squished, instead of the object itself being squished?
Excellent video, but I think there’s a minor error. When an in-falling object emits light, the light coming out is red-shifted as you say, but the light falling in is also red-shifted, whereas your animation has it blue-shifted. It’s the light going sideways which is blue-shifted. This is exactly the same phenomenon as the tidal stretching and squeezing that you explain so well later. Thank you.
The video is correct. The frequency of the light is shown as it would be seen by an observer at rest relative to the black hole. From the perspective of these animations, you can think of the frequency as how many of the arrows pass the observer during each unit of time.
Great vid as always, Eugene. I have hard time understanding a specific point though : what would happen if two identical black holes passed near each other, but without merging ? If we are just between these two BH when they cross their pass, will the gravitational pull of both BH decrease around us ? If yes, does it mean that the event horizon will recess ? I have hard time finding answers to that specific question, so if anyone has a clear answer on that, don't hesitate to share your science here.
Yes. Think of it as touching together two cables both with +5V potential. The result is 0V difference. But closer you would get to black holes themselves, the event horison would eventually be there. Depending on the speeds of individual black holes, usually the bigger one would suck out the smaller one. It would be interesting if there is any way to uncreate a black hole this way without completely eating it. But as far as I know no. It would just evaporate if sufficiently small.
@@MaDrung That's what puzzles me... if the "diameter" of the event horizon can be changed under the influence of another black hole, does not that mean that an object that was stuck behind the horizon could now get out ? What does general relativity says about spacetime curving between two same gravitational fields ? Normally, time should slow down twice more and yet the gravitational pull should be balanced/canceled. Just a thought : if the event horizon changes under external gravitational influence, can't we say that this is the equivalent of Hawking radiations (the weak gravity of the universe makes the horizon vibrate and emits radiations) ?
@@En_theo If you change event horizon, then the object stuck in event horizon (based on your frame of reference) would just get sucked further in to new event horizon since the event horizon can not shrink faster than speed of light. If you have two massive objects, the spacetime between them (in one point at least) should cancel out, since they're "pulling" in opposite directions. So time does not slow down actually, but is returned to "normal" as somewhere far away from any big mass. 3. Event horizon is not a "physical thing". It's just a boundary where light can't escape. So it does not create electromagnetic radiation by itself. You have to look at behaviour of masses. But if the black hole has imbalance of electrical charges, then I guess it could radiate photons due to this effect? But I guess this energy comes from the other black hole interfering with the event horizon shape. Something to think about. I hope we get some answers from someone actually competent in physics.
I don't quite understand why would the object be torn apart. if different parts accelerate at different rates from the perspective of someone far away, wouldn't it be that from a falling object perspective it would look fine because different parts also have different time rates? also, if someone far away can see an object frozen in time near a black hole. would that mean that a falling object can see the whole universe at an infinitely increased time rate? so basically the whole universe including the black hole where the observer is falling would end in a moment?
it's ironic that gravity is considered a weak force compared to the covalent bond, but it is gravity (in scale) that ultimately undoes the bond and puts matter (eventually and progressively denser) through the periodic table of elements until it resides in a black hole as pure potential energy again. Which is probably what the conditions were directly preceeding the big bang.
Gravitational wave patterns induced by fuzzyball blackhole differs from gravitational wave patterns generated by singularity blackhole. By exploring gravitation wave patterns through Ai enabled gravitational wave detectors, it is possible to confirm the validity of string theory.
Fascinating. Suddenly an idea has clicked in my brain, due to this marvellous explanation. I suggest that Space-time is like energy, in that it can neither be created or destroyed. The expansion of the universe is therefore caused by the singularities at the centre of black holes. The observations that we see as the speeding up of this expansion of our universe, is the compensatory effect of the increasing number of black holes as the occur throughout the almost infinite space around us . . . “Almost infinite,” but not quite. If my idea is right, it would need to be finite (or at least, “local”) so that the thing preventing the actual tearing of the fabric of space and time is the compensatory effect of space and time being directly reproduced in a diametric obverse to the amount of matter and energy consumed by black holes. The more black holes there are, the faster the effect. Thus, we see an ever increasing effect presently as more black holes are created, but we could see the effect slow down in areas where there is nothing but void, or no black holes within a vast region of billions of light years? To test such a theory might not be so difficult either? We know of certain voids in the galaxy. If we were to measure them and see if they were shrinking, or simply stable in a way that contradicted the rate of the universe’s expansion, this might be evidence to support my hypothesis, making it a working, “theory?” Just a thought . . .
No. Spacetime does not fall into the black hole. A black hole is a location of zero spacetime. Spacetime is warped by the gravitational event, that's it.
"How is it possible for light to be unable to escape from a black hole", So what about all the Plasma, Gas and Dust in the Galactic Jets, they seem to escape just fine.
Does spacetime really flow? It makes intuitive sense when trying to understand how light is locked into black holes, but never heard this mentioned on other science channels.
Yes, but not to all observers. Each observer sees this differently. There is a detailed discussion of this at the following link. jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Watching the rings fall into the center for a while then look away at something else and it will appear to grow and expand or come out, the opposite of the animation.
Any hypothesis that suggests that the center of a black hole is a singularity is wrong as this would imply destruction of matter, which is not possible, so we are missing something is all.
So technically nothing can pass through the event horizon as it would take infinite amount of time, therefore all the mass black holes absorb are stuck on the event horizon forming a shell around the black hole. One thing I don't understand about the tidal forces is, if it is caused by the stretching of spacetime then tidal forces shouldn't tear anything apart. Because when space stretches everything else inside it stretches just as much, so the very atoms and particles of the object.
The black hole is at least a 3-dimensional object, yet models portray it in this 2-dimensional hole with the black hole at the bottom. What if one considered the vectors coming in from all dimensions, like the inverse of a bubble popping? Matter is not "falling into" the black hole. The black hole is creating attraction. Consider if the epicenter of the black hole will not work like a whirlpool pulling down, but an implosion.
If the black hole stretches space time, what happens to space time when hypothetically you take two black holes and put them beside each other? To keep it simple, I'm assuming both black holes are of equal net mass. If then you move them both closer and closer towards each other, what happens to space time that exists in the middle? Can you hypothetically pull the fabric of space apart from itself?
Can this be used to “see” the event horizon of a black hole? For example, by throwing a lot of stuff at it so it gets frozen in time at the event horizon from our perspective. Would that work?
I'm not a physicist but I would think that any light radiating from the falling bodies would get so redishifted before getting to the actual event horizon that they would be effectively black (too dim to be detected through even sophisticated sensors) before we saw them freeze in time at the actual horizon
From our perspective, objects never cross the event horizon. In other words, black holes which were formed after the universe aren't truly black holes yet. They're just highly compressed, time-dilated matter which is frozen in the process of forming a black hole. For it to finish forming a true black hole, we have to fall into the "black hole". Which means all the mass isn't actually concentrated in the center yet.
I've always wondered, is it truly possible for anyone to fall into a black hole, considering that time dilation means that the closer you get, the faster time moves for everyone in comparison to you, is there a point at which time for the universe outside the black hole becomes near infinite and the black hole ends up radiating away all it's mass, so by definition, you never truly fall in because the blackhole itself ceases to exist due to the amount of time that has passed since you began falling, and when you were about to hit the centre
This time dilation only exists from the perspective of a distant observer. From the perspective of the falling observer, their clock is running normally, and they pass right through the event horizon without any problems.
The high entropy of a black hole lends credence to the "Mixmaster Theory" where spacetime inside the hole is chaotic like the contents of a blender that has been turned on.
Great vid. When people talk about length contraction they forget that it actually describes a full x,y,z compression of space, so the aperture of a black hole is in fact the exact size of the mass below, but the aperture is expanded hence the funnel like curves, this is true for atoms as well, twice the Temperature is twice the compression, therefore the "deeper" mass "appears" half the size , but it is in fact going straight down on all sides. So no "singularity" either, the weight is just point temperatures of the mass expressing Gravity for it's temperature in the weight space and consuming massive amounts of space, which is compressing into the aperture of the black hole to feed the mass/temperature creating the mass. i.e. it's not really curved it just looks like it because of time dilated or compressed space physics.
Thank you for this amazing video! A question regarding black holes as space time falls into them faster than the speed of light. Does it mean some space time is “lost” inside black holes? There are hypothesis who say that black holes could form other universes as equations tend toward infinity making possible for another space time to be created. So our universe could also come from a black hole located in an other universe where space time is falling into. Could this explain dark energy?
First of all keep in mind that space is 'Nothing' ... Space itself carry no information rather it is photons which carry information... Also for a flat universe space is infinite so you can't say that space is lost.. Because infinity - something = infinity... Space carry no information... It is just a medium through which information can travel in the form of light and gravitational waves...
Space doesn't flow into black holes, the animation and explanation given in the video are misleading. If it did, then space would flow into all mass distribution, like the planet Earth or a hamster. The metric tensor would also look different. In a given metric tensor, one could say space flows in a given direction by specifying the 3-velocity which maximizes proper time experienced per unit coordinate time at each point in space. For the Schwarzschild metric though, said 3-velocity is always 0 m/s. Also, black holes probably aren't real. What we actually observe are probably just shell collapsars. Those have neither event horizons nor singularities but look practically identical to black holes on the outside. Dark energy could also be explained by a universe-wide negative energy density.
How objects "freeze" on the event horizon? From the video, they become more and more red shifted, until they disappear (no light/signal from them is received outside the Event Horizon).
As an object drops further into the mass of the black hole time slows. Is there a point where time is so slow that a micron of forward motion would, to the outside observer, take longer than the current age of the universe? If so, wouldn’t that mean black holes are not truly singularities?
There is much talk about the information paradox, but I still don't understand the paradox. From an observer outside the black hole, an object (and its information) never pass the event horizon -- time slows down asymptotically to zero (at least, that is my layman's understanding). It seems like, from outside the black hole, the information exists forever at the boundary and doesn't fall in, right?
From the perspective of the distant observer, there is a spatial distortion, so the space does "stretch", but the space is not continuously falling inward.
I remember finding your early videos when I was 14-15. I’m now about to start a BS physics degree (though I already have an AS in math, so it’ll just be a 2-3 year thing for me). It’s nice to know that these videos helped drive me to where I currently am.
Thanks.
I am glad to hear that my videos have had a positive influence. Thanks.
I'm about to finish my bs in physics (I'm a little off schedule because of covid, so I have 3 courses left, and 2 more semesters).
But physics is a great choice. Not sure how the job opportunities are with only a bs, but I love learning all of this stuff.
Dr. Vivian Robinson pinpointed math mistake that led to theoretical Black Holes. Event horizon does not exist actually - it appeared due to a simple math blunder. "Nearly Black Holes" - term introduced by Eric Lerner, plasma physicist, - exist: they have magnetic field like normal or neutron stars have, and have strong time dilation around - that burns cosmic rays and particles, and other things explained in my Time Matters. As for "light cannot escape" see chapter 1 on Snell's law. Chapter 11 explains radiation around nearly black holes, around/in galaxy centers/bulges, what is going on in Fermilab.
It still seems to be a Misnomer to call Ultra compressed matter, energy, and space time a 'hole'. If all things are eventually sucked into one super sized black hole, you basically get the infinite point of all energy at the start of the Big Bang. And perhaps POP! it all just happens all over again.
@@SeaJay_Oceans big bang seems like the logical opposite of a black hole anyways. The black hole is a point in space where (within the event horizon) all paths through space end up at. Big bang is a point in space which you can never reach, as all points in space and time are expanding away from it.
You'd tell me if my life was just an animation you made, right?
You understand it at all!
you're an animation andrew
In a parallel universe, you actually are chilling with Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson
He just did.
Lmao love your vids btw; you're doing any would-be god's work, my man 🤙🏻🤙🏻
You'll know when you get to the credits and bloopers.
This is one of the few channels where I’ll drop everything to watch a new upload! Amazing video as always
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you like my videos.
Content like this has to be more widespread, it is such a great way for knowledge to be passed on.
Thanks!
The way physics is taught in schools and colleges is so pathetic, we are made to focus only on formulas to solve numerical problems which makes students lose their interest from the subject, but few people like Mr.Eugene have kept our curiosity alive.
Great video as always.
Thankyou 🙂
Thanks.
Would you please do a video on the large scale expansion of the Universe? I struggle to understand what an accelerating rate of expansion means for the Observable Universe. Will we see more, older galaxies as time goes on, or fewer galaxies?
It means we will see fewer galaxies. I cover the expansion of the Universe in the following videos.
ruclips.net/video/IFdfrtzo4SY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/g1WU35KxLrA/видео.html
Fewer and fewer until the universe appears to be completely black.
Your videos are so good, too bad that RUclips decided to forbid users from making subtitles for a videos they don't own, most of my friends here in Brazil used mine for understanding your videos.
This can still be done through email. If you want to submit new subtitles, please send me an email indicating which video you want to translate, and I will email you the subtitle file in English (which includes the timings). You will then be able to edit the file to replace the English with the translation, and then email the file back to me. I will then upload it to my channel. My email address is available in the "about" tab of my home page, if you view it on a PC. Thanks.
love the videos eugene, helped me a lot with some concepts i just couldn't wrap my head around. would love to see one on transmission lines and antennas
Thanks. I have a video on Transmission Lines at ruclips.net/video/ozeYaikI11g/видео.html
Fantastic to see new content will have to check out Patreon. Like how this video ties concepts from previous videos and gives a new perspective on black holes for a normal person like me.
Thank you very much for your support on Patreon. Your support means a lot to me. I very much appreciate it and I am glad that you like my videos.
Eugene, you are one of the best human beings ever existed
Thanks for that really great compliment.
Finding this channel had the tremendous positive impact on my studies.
I am glad my videos have been helpful. Thanks.
2 Physics channels on RUclips that i would always recommend is yours and ScienceClic English.
ScienceClic is great too!
This is amazing!! Thank you for the always amazing explanations.
I also just saw a video from PBS spacetime mentioning how black holes in string theory are fuzzballs. Incredibly Interesting stuff.
Thanks. I am glad you like my explanations.
3:46 I have a small question about this: In real life, as a black hole gets more mass, its event horizon expands; so in such a case, will the distant observer see the falling object crossing the expanding event horizon slowly, or would they see the object slowing moving outward with the expanding event horizon?
yes but in the newly formed gaps, caused by the further expansion, caused by the new mass falling into the black hole, there is the new information (or image/pucture) of said mass. long story short: as with anything black hole related, the reality of it is much more complicated than other oversimplified model can show. e.g. most blackholes aren't perfect spheres + they spin extremely fast + other weird effects.
@@GuRuGeorge03 a spinning hole 🕳 sounds awesome 👌
It's hard to wrap my head around all of this stuff. I've been watching videos like this since I was a young kid watching the original Carl Sagan cosmos series on vhs.
The event horizon expands just a tiny little bit. You won't see an effect there. Falling objects freeze in time and fade way as wave lengths gets stretched.
Incredible video! A unified theory so we can understand the centre of black holes would be amazing! Are there any current theories you prefer or do you not like any of them?
At the center of a black hole the gravity is zero. Fun stuff happens at the event horizon.
spacetime close to a black hole is so warped that
- every spatial direction points more and more towards the center of the black hole, till every direction points to the inside.
- the time-dimension gets shorter and shorter (the speed of time slows town to a near-stop)
When the black hole spins (fast enough), this area is surrounded by a more turbulent ergosphere, with more turbulent spacetime arrows, that can be "sailed" trough and escaped (with a lot of good timing and energy use), and that can theoretically be used to throw mass into the black hole in a close flyby through the ergosphere to gain a LOT of momentum AWAY from the black hole (and easily reaching escape velocity)
Marvelous video. Love your work Eugene!
Thanks!
Finally somebody did a video representation with the space grid in time!
I have a question: there are 4 regions where the grid looks a lot more scarce than it is in other areas (on diagonals of some sort) - is this a limitation of the visualisation, some kind of aliasing, or is it how the space is curved in reality too?
And the second question: each white dot of the grid gets really curved as it gets closer to the singularity - so is it a "pixel" of space that gets curved like this or is it the object in the space that gets curved?
In reply to your first question, this was just due to a limitation in my animation technique. It should be radially symmetrical. I am not sure I understand your second question. It is space-time which is curved.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky I think the base answer of space-time becoming curved would help answer that both the "pixel", or better described as differential element, in that point of space time becoming curved would result in any object which enters into this new element or "pixel" would conform to the physics of that point. Thinking in larger perspective would presume an object that exists in greater area than the element would see its own changing curvature as the physics influencing the object would cause the matter of the object to conform the physics of each point it exists, causing the object itself to curve. This would even be true on earth, as every differential point on an object is subject to different magnitudes of forces, but in a blackhole everything is extremely magnified. This really only holds up to a point to where the gravitational forces and influence of radiation would allow the bonds to still exist, as the object would no longer become an object, but breakdown into its base components.
This is just my 2 cents at 5am, but I think the logic is mildly sound without getting into overly complicated physics in a comment and having to bring high level mathematics and physics theory into it.
Imagine our visible universe is falling into a MASSIVE universe-size black hole. Could that explain the seeming space expansion we observe (being the stretching effect of falling into a hole)? Or would it only make expansion non-radial from every point, but accross an axis? Is it possible to calculate, if it was the case, how it would look to us and if its matching what we observe?
Great video! Do we have any hypothesis about what happens to subatomic particle when they fall into a black hole. Like there should be a point where the gravitational gradient is strong enough to overcome the strong force holding quarks together.
Edit: replace field -> gradient
Thanks. We will have to wait for a unified theory of physics before we are able to answer that question with any degree of confidence.
“gravitacional *field*” - you mean gravitational GRADIENT.
@@dosomething3 I think he was using his best understanding of english
@@dosomething3 ah yeah that's what I meant.
honestly one of the most informative videos ive seen on black holes. its surprising how ive heard so many people talk about black holes, but have never understood what people mean by "singularity" and "infinite density" until now.
I am glad you liked my video. Thanks.
I really enjoy your presentations. Very original and inspiring Eugene. Keep us educated with your unique prospective👍❤👌
Thanks!
You are my favorite thing on RUclips. Thanks Eugene.
Thanks for the compliment.
Great animation! One question though : what does it mean for space time to 'fall into' something? How can the spacetime itself move? If it does move, then where does it move, in a higher dimensional space?
It doesn't really move, in GR spacetime is a four-dimensional set of points (events) with certain geometry.
probably yes, into a higher dimension that we cannot perceive.
I did not realize that it was spacetime itself that was falling into the black hole.
Now I wonder if when we see the universe expand, if looked at from another perspective, it could be the average of all spacetime falling into all existing balck holes?
So, the universe would be expanding into black holes, and since there are so many of them, and they are scattered all throughout the universe, it could look like either the universe is expanding, or the universe is falling into its black holes.
The universe expanding and contracting infinitely and simultaneously. ?
The expansion of the universe as a whole happens with the same rate everywhere at any given " moment" of its cosmic history, and its acceleration due to the cosmological constant seems to be the same also wherever we look. Our universe is approximately homogeneous and isotropic, at least when we're talking about very big scales. It's not the same with black holes:
The spacetime geometry of a collapsing star that forms a black hole is not isotropic. The curvature and the tidal forces grow as one comes closer, and inside the horizon they become time dependent, so everything that falls in is doomed. The interior of any black hole is indeed growing, so that older black holes have larger interiors, but this expansion is very different from the expansion of the universe.
Me encantan los vídeos de Eugene porque son muy ilustrativos hasta para personas como yo que valoramos todo tipo de aprendizaje aun sin tener los estudios pertinentes. Me gustaría que los tradujesen al español. Gracias.
Acostumbraba ver estos vídeos aún sin entenderlos porque me gusta mucho la física de partículas y lamento no haber aprendido el idioma.
@@julitacarranza9339 si traduces los videos al español, me encantaria mirarlo!
estoy aprendiendo español y sería muy útil!
I just love all your videos because they are so simple and easy to understand😃
Thanks!
If the universe started as a singularity, then it could just be inside a black hole of another universe (or inside itself - recursion).
If spacetime is constantly being pulled more and more down into blackholes, could the even, constant, expansion of spacetime everwhere else in the universe be caused by said blackholes? Like multiple people all pulling down on a cloth, stretching it?
I like to imagine black holes being gears to our universe.
This video actually makes sense to me! I've watched many,, many shows (and read papers and articles) about black holes and I just figured that the science of black holes was just beyond my feeble understanding. The way this is presented is very logical and understandable. Thank you!
I am glad you liked my explanation. Thanks.
Hahaha I just wrote about the same comment!! Glad to see I wasn't the only one struggling with this 😊
Excited as always !! For the understanding the content provides.
Thanks.
Thanls for another fantastic video! Can you make a video explaining the time and space switch inside a black hole?
Thanks for the compliment about my video. Perhaps I may make a video on that in the future, but this is just due to the way the mathematics of the coordinate system is defined, rather than an actual physical phenomenon.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Thank you!
Lets see how that circle of marbles holds together with angular momentum!
Awesome. I too reached that point of time stretching near black hole and light never reaches to an observer who is outside. For the observer whi is outside, the object is still travelling in black hole for infinite time.
Could you make a playlist with all the *orchestral* (edit) works you use in your videos? Some of them are kinda hard to find. Thanks for all the work you put in your videos
I don't think I understand what you are asking. All my videos are available on the "Videos" tab of my RUclips home page.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky I have just reread it and it made zero sense hahaha. I meant works as the songs you use in the videos
The song in this video is Hungarian_Rhapsody_No_2_by_Liszt from the free RUclips audio library.
I'm used to thinking of spacetime as a static manifold described by a metric. You seem to be saying we can also think of spacetime as pieces of space being "dragged around" overtime. Is there a way to mathematically formally size this?
The visual was showing a static spacetime, and the "draging" was representing the flow of time, but the shape of spacetime was not changing. It does get changed over time if a black hole is moving or being formed, of course.
This is discussed in detail at jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Thank you for existing!
Thanks.
When I feel demotivated I watch these types of videos. Then I feel motivated .
I am glad that my videos are motivating. Thanks.
This is amazing! Can you link to the code used to make the animations? I’d love to play around with it :)
I make my 3D animations with "Poser." I have a video on how I make 3D animations at ruclips.net/video/6Hl5dvA88Uo/видео.html
Its been so long since the last video, thanks
My previous video was only 3 weeks ago. Thanks.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky If I've understood correctly, David's perspective could be valid if you were releasing these videos near a black hole, and David was a distant observer.
An object on the event horizon does not “appear frozen” to us. As the object approaches the horizon, not only the photons it emits are more and more redshifted, but fewer and fewer photons per time unit manage to reach us. So the object not only appears redder and slower, but also darker, and when it’s sufficiently near the horizon it doesn’t “freeze” - rather it disappears, as we are unable to detect any signal coming from it.
Apart from this, excellent work!
What you wrote does not contradict what is shown in the video. If each arrow represents a photon, then I show fewer and fewer photons arriving, in both reference frames. Thanks.
This channel is one of the first i subscribed for its very very nice video graphics and lecture it still the most valuable for us
Thanks for the compliments.
Can you do a video on wormholes? I don't quite understand the idea of them.
Wormholes are on my list of topics for future videos. By the way, wormholes are not known to exist. If they did exist, then time travel would be possible.
Really liking the subtler soundtracks lately. I find it a lot easier to focus on the superb narration this way.
Very engaging and intuitive. I will always look forward to content from this channel.
Thanks.
Very well illustrated! Thank you for these interesting and informative videos!
Thanks.
I've always disliked the paradigm described in the subtitle at 1:35, which posits the existence of a point mass of infinite density (singularity) at the center of a BH that is also separate and distinct from the event horizon that surrounds it, and whose inner boundary terminates at the Schwarzchild Radius.
My question is WHY do we need to embrace the assumption of a singularity at all ? Doing that basically poops the bedsheets, in a mathematical sense, and once pooped it's hard to up-poop them (i.e., cancel out the infinities).
I have a different spin on Black Holes (pun intended). Einstein showed us that matter and energy are different sides of the same proverbial coin, and also that gravitational mass and the warpage of spacetime are as well. Taken together, that would seem to ELIMINATE the need for a black hole's mass to be attributed to an unseen point mass located at the center of the schwarzchild radius, because since matter and energy are equivalent; and since gravitational mass and the warpage of spacetime are equivalent, it seems to follow that the mass of a black hole IS THE DISTORTION IT EXERTS ON SPACETIME. Just like a whirlpool in a river or a bathtub has no point mass driving it, it seems to me that a black hole, once birthed, does not need a singularity to maintain/explain it. Put another way, maybe the hole isnt a consequence of something ... maybe the black hole itself IS the phenomenoa, and the interior does not even exist.
Consider a warp in spacetime as being an energy phenomenoa in and of itself ... the greater the mass, the greater the schwarzchild radius (SR). As matter in the event horizon reaches the SR, it shreds and changes state into energy - some of it escapes as high energy radiation, and the rest gets added to the increasing warpage in spacetime (re: the hole), which per Einstein is indistinguishable from an increase in mass/matter.
Bottom line: i'm inclined to think the mass of a black hole IS the energy inherent in the spacetime warpage it manifests as, plus the combined matter energy and inertia present in the event horizon that's orbiting it and/or accreting onto it. Also, I'm not convinced black holes "spin" in a physical sense - rather, any effects that appear as spin are just a consequence of the warpage of spacetime, along with the motion and changes in state of matter and energy in the event horizon, as they accelerate at relatavistic speeds towards their eventual encounter with the schwarzchild boundary. In other words, black holes do have a movement vector, and things do spin around them at incredible speeds (including light), but the hole itself does not spin.
Anyway, that's my $0.02 on Black Holes. I'm not an astrophysicist, so take all that handwaving with a grain of salt, and a grin. Cheers.
will it tear me apart if I crash into a black hole at the speed of light?
Breakdown of objects due to tidal forces does not require situations as extreme as a black hole. Assume you take a bucket of ping pong balls into Earth orbit and remove the bucket. Initially the balls will stay next to each other in their orbit (by inertia and by the extremely weak binding force between them) but given enough time, and assuming we can ignore other factors like solar wind, the cluster will be stretched and eventually broken by Earth’s own tidal forces.
Because time slows at the EH it will take the age of the universe for it to transit and head toward the center of mass.
I assert that a BH is solid. Comprised of mass stuck at the point of crossing the EH and later mass freezing just above. Nothing ever makes it to the “center” of the BH. Mass cannot continue to migrate towards the center as it's frozen in time from the perspective of an outside observer -- it would take the age of the universe to reach the center of mass.
It’s been years since I discovered this channel, each video is truly amazing.
Thanks.
Wow, so impressive and smooth space-time texture stretching!
How to code something like this?
The velocity of the grid seems to match that of a particle dropped from infinity. The color at each point in time seems to be a cycle of a constant period between black and white. The only thing which varies over space is the phase. The texture is mapped onto Flamm's paraboloid.
So light is a pencil drawing on paper at constant speed, and the black hole is the paper crumpling into itself?
Matter & energy move from higher to lower energy density region of space. The difference in energy density produces a force field directed from higher to lower energy density region. Since black hole pulls matter & energy its center must be a region of minimum energy density or Empty.
Do you think it would be accurate/possible to describe what takes place in an around a Black Hole in terms of Entropy, and avoid talking about time? I think Einstein was right when he referred to the distinction between past, present and future as only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Time in GR is a coordinate, very clear and geometric. Entropy, on the other hand, is a very poorly defined thing, much harder to reason about objectively.
Would be very interesting to see the same for both rotating and charged black holes, as well as other, maybe non-analytic, cases I don’t know of
I may cover rotating and charged black holes in a future video.
ok but anyone else notice that if you stare at something else (like your computer keyboard) after watching this video that you start hallucinating that its doing the same thing as in the animation?
I mean it surely looks like the object is torn apart, but from the perspective of the object wouldnt it look like all space around the object is squished, instead of the object itself being squished?
Excellent video, but I think there’s a minor error. When an in-falling object emits light, the light coming out is red-shifted as you say, but the light falling in is also red-shifted, whereas your animation has it blue-shifted. It’s the light going sideways which is blue-shifted. This is exactly the same phenomenon as the tidal stretching and squeezing that you explain so well later. Thank you.
The video is correct. The frequency of the light is shown as it would be seen by an observer at rest relative to the black hole. From the perspective of these animations, you can think of the frequency as how many of the arrows pass the observer during each unit of time.
Great video could you do one on rotating black holes
Rotating Black holes are on my list of topics for future videos. Thanks.
Great vid as always, Eugene. I have hard time understanding a specific point though : what would happen if two identical black holes passed near each other, but without merging ? If we are just between these two BH when they cross their pass, will the gravitational pull of both BH decrease around us ? If yes, does it mean that the event horizon will recess ?
I have hard time finding answers to that specific question, so if anyone has a clear answer on that, don't hesitate to share your science here.
Yes. Think of it as touching together two cables both with +5V potential. The result is 0V difference. But closer you would get to black holes themselves, the event horison would eventually be there. Depending on the speeds of individual black holes, usually the bigger one would suck out the smaller one. It would be interesting if there is any way to uncreate a black hole this way without completely eating it. But as far as I know no. It would just evaporate if sufficiently small.
@@MaDrung
That's what puzzles me... if the "diameter" of the event horizon can be changed under the influence of another black hole, does not that mean that an object that was stuck behind the horizon could now get out ?
What does general relativity says about spacetime curving between two same gravitational fields ? Normally, time should slow down twice more and yet the gravitational pull should be balanced/canceled.
Just a thought : if the event horizon changes under external gravitational influence, can't we say that this is the equivalent of Hawking radiations (the weak gravity of the universe makes the horizon vibrate and emits radiations) ?
@@En_theo
If you change event horizon, then the object stuck in event horizon (based on your frame of reference) would just get sucked further in to new event horizon since the event horizon can not shrink faster than speed of light.
If you have two massive objects, the spacetime between them (in one point at least) should cancel out, since they're "pulling" in opposite directions. So time does not slow down actually, but is returned to "normal" as somewhere far away from any big mass.
3. Event horizon is not a "physical thing". It's just a boundary where light can't escape. So it does not create electromagnetic radiation by itself. You have to look at behaviour of masses. But if the black hole has imbalance of electrical charges, then I guess it could radiate photons due to this effect? But I guess this energy comes from the other black hole interfering with the event horizon shape.
Something to think about. I hope we get some answers from someone actually competent in physics.
I don't quite understand why would the object be torn apart. if different parts accelerate at different rates from the perspective of someone far away, wouldn't it be that from a falling object perspective it would look fine because different parts also have different time rates?
also, if someone far away can see an object frozen in time near a black hole. would that mean that a falling object can see the whole universe at an infinitely increased time rate? so basically the whole universe including the black hole where the observer is falling would end in a moment?
it's ironic that gravity is considered a weak force compared to the covalent bond, but it is gravity (in scale) that ultimately undoes the bond and puts matter (eventually and progressively denser) through the periodic table of elements until it resides in a black hole as pure potential energy again. Which is probably what the conditions were directly preceeding the big bang.
This is just awesome, this channel should be as famous as Veritasium!
Thanks.
Gravitational wave patterns induced by fuzzyball blackhole differs from gravitational wave patterns generated by singularity blackhole.
By exploring gravitation wave patterns through Ai enabled gravitational wave detectors, it is possible to confirm the validity of string theory.
So glad you are back!
Nice! I really enjoy your physics videos.
Thanks. I am glad you like my videos.
Fascinating. Suddenly an idea has clicked in my brain, due to this marvellous explanation. I suggest that Space-time is like energy, in that it can neither be created or destroyed. The expansion of the universe is therefore caused by the singularities at the centre of black holes. The observations that we see as the speeding up of this expansion of our universe, is the compensatory effect of the increasing number of black holes as the occur throughout the almost infinite space around us . . . “Almost infinite,” but not quite. If my idea is right, it would need to be finite (or at least, “local”) so that the thing preventing the actual tearing of the fabric of space and time is the compensatory effect of space and time being directly reproduced in a diametric obverse to the amount of matter and energy consumed by black holes. The more black holes there are, the faster the effect. Thus, we see an ever increasing effect presently as more black holes are created, but we could see the effect slow down in areas where there is nothing but void, or no black holes within a vast region of billions of light years?
To test such a theory might not be so difficult either? We know of certain voids in the galaxy. If we were to measure them and see if they were shrinking, or simply stable in a way that contradicted the rate of the universe’s expansion, this might be evidence to support my hypothesis, making it a working, “theory?” Just a thought . . .
No. Spacetime does not fall into the black hole. A black hole is a location of zero spacetime. Spacetime is warped by the gravitational event, that's it.
"How is it possible for light to be unable to escape from a black hole",
So what about all the Plasma, Gas and Dust in the Galactic Jets, they seem to escape just fine.
They're not escaping from inside the black hole, maybe do your research before posting such comment😉
@@danielkerr4100 There's no such place as INSIDE a black hole, that's not what I said and that's not what the video said,
Try again when your sober.
Excellent video, as always! Have a wonderful holiday and Happy New Year
Thank you. You too.
Does spacetime really flow? It makes intuitive sense when trying to understand how light is locked into black holes, but never heard this mentioned on other science channels.
Yes, but not to all observers. Each observer sees this differently. There is a detailed discussion of this at the following link. jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Watching the rings fall into the center for a while then look away at something else and it will appear to grow and expand or come out, the opposite of the animation.
Wow Dr. K, this was another masterpiece!
Thanks.
This is a great channel! Thank You from the old lady!
Thanks.
Any hypothesis that suggests that the center of a black hole is a singularity is wrong as this would imply destruction of matter, which is not possible, so we are missing something is all.
So technically nothing can pass through the event horizon as it would take infinite amount of time, therefore all the mass black holes absorb are stuck on the event horizon forming a shell around the black hole. One thing I don't understand about the tidal forces is, if it is caused by the stretching of spacetime then tidal forces shouldn't tear anything apart. Because when space stretches everything else inside it stretches just as much, so the very atoms and particles of the object.
The black hole is at least a 3-dimensional object, yet models portray it in this 2-dimensional hole with the black hole at the bottom. What if one considered the vectors coming in from all dimensions, like the inverse of a bubble popping?
Matter is not "falling into" the black hole. The black hole is creating attraction. Consider if the epicenter of the black hole will not work like a whirlpool pulling down, but an implosion.
Kilra loves things getting torn apart.
"Prisons of Light" was my first true book :)
If the black hole stretches space time, what happens to space time when hypothetically you take two black holes and put them beside each other? To keep it simple, I'm assuming both black holes are of equal net mass. If then you move them both closer and closer towards each other, what happens to space time that exists in the middle? Can you hypothetically pull the fabric of space apart from itself?
I just wish I could take the tiniest peek at what we'll know a thousand years from now.
would you add the perspective of the object itself seing the area around itself being squished?
Can this be used to “see” the event horizon of a black hole? For example, by throwing a lot of stuff at it so it gets frozen in time at the event horizon from our perspective. Would that work?
I'm not a physicist but I would think that any light radiating from the falling bodies would get so redishifted before getting to the actual event horizon that they would be effectively black (too dim to be detected through even sophisticated sensors) before we saw them freeze in time at the actual horizon
From our perspective, objects never cross the event horizon. In other words, black holes which were formed after the universe aren't truly black holes yet. They're just highly compressed, time-dilated matter which is frozen in the process of forming a black hole. For it to finish forming a true black hole, we have to fall into the "black hole". Which means all the mass isn't actually concentrated in the center yet.
What a great video! Thanks for sharing.
I am glad you liked my video. Thanks.
I've always wondered, is it truly possible for anyone to fall into a black hole, considering that time dilation means that the closer you get, the faster time moves for everyone in comparison to you, is there a point at which time for the universe outside the black hole becomes near infinite and the black hole ends up radiating away all it's mass, so by definition, you never truly fall in because the blackhole itself ceases to exist due to the amount of time that has passed since you began falling, and when you were about to hit the centre
This time dilation only exists from the perspective of a distant observer. From the perspective of the falling observer, their clock is running normally, and they pass right through the event horizon without any problems.
The whole time thing is crazy to me. What we experience as time is made up by us, but time is still a real phenomenon in the universe.
Ah so the old wisdom that nothing can go faster than the speed of light does not hold for the rate at with space/time falls into a black hole.
The high entropy of a black hole lends credence to the "Mixmaster Theory" where spacetime inside the hole is chaotic like the contents of a blender that has been turned on.
Great vid.
When people talk about length contraction they forget that it actually describes a full x,y,z compression of space, so the aperture of a black hole is in fact the exact size of the mass below, but the aperture is expanded hence the funnel like curves, this is true for atoms as well, twice the Temperature is twice the compression, therefore the "deeper" mass "appears" half the size , but it is in fact going straight down on all sides.
So no "singularity" either, the weight is just point temperatures of the mass expressing Gravity for it's temperature in the weight space and consuming massive amounts of space, which is compressing into the aperture of the black hole to feed the mass/temperature creating the mass.
i.e. it's not really curved it just looks like it because of time dilated or compressed space physics.
please please keep uploading such videos ......very very useful 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
More videos are on their way. Thanks.
Thank you for this amazing video!
A question regarding black holes as space time falls into them faster than the speed of light. Does it mean some space time is “lost” inside black holes?
There are hypothesis who say that black holes could form other universes as equations tend toward infinity making possible for another space time to be created.
So our universe could also come from a black hole located in an other universe where space time is falling into. Could this explain dark energy?
Thanks for the compliment about my video. No one really knows the answers to these questions. At least not yet.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky thank you for your quick answer.
First of all keep in mind that space is 'Nothing' ... Space itself carry no information rather it is photons which carry information... Also for a flat universe space is infinite so you can't say that space is lost.. Because infinity - something = infinity... Space carry no information... It is just a medium through which information can travel in the form of light and gravitational waves...
Space doesn't flow into black holes, the animation and explanation given in the video are misleading. If it did, then space would flow into all mass distribution, like the planet Earth or a hamster. The metric tensor would also look different. In a given metric tensor, one could say space flows in a given direction by specifying the 3-velocity which maximizes proper time experienced per unit coordinate time at each point in space. For the Schwarzschild metric though, said 3-velocity is always 0 m/s. Also, black holes probably aren't real. What we actually observe are probably just shell collapsars. Those have neither event horizons nor singularities but look practically identical to black holes on the outside. Dark energy could also be explained by a universe-wide negative energy density.
Laff700, the video is correct. Details are available at the following link. jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
How objects "freeze" on the event horizon? From the video, they become more and more red shifted, until they disappear (no light/signal from them is received outside the Event Horizon).
looking at these animations creates an optical illusion. everything I look at is warping
Excellent visualizations. Thank you.
Thanks for the compliment.
As an object drops further into the mass of the black hole time slows. Is there a point where time is so slow that a micron of forward motion would, to the outside observer, take longer than the current age of the universe? If so, wouldn’t that mean black holes are not truly singularities?
My goodness the op art was tripping out my eyes. O.o
There is much talk about the information paradox, but I still don't understand the paradox. From an observer outside the black hole, an object (and its information) never pass the event horizon -- time slows down asymptotically to zero (at least, that is my layman's understanding). It seems like, from outside the black hole, the information exists forever at the boundary and doesn't fall in, right?
So, in the perspective of a distant observer, the space do not stretch around the black hole?
From the perspective of the distant observer, there is a spatial distortion, so the space does "stretch", but the space is not continuously falling inward.