It was such a privilege to give a talk at the Royal Institution, where Michael Faraday created the first electric motor in 1821 and first generated electricity from magnetism - the basis of millions of electrical generators across the world today - in 1831. By the door to the lecture theatre is an oil painting of Faraday lecturing, and, in a glass case, the very instruments he used in that demonstration!
@@gymhayes4613 Stars convert hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, the by product of which is sunlight. Strictly speaking this is not "burning". You are right. But everyone knows what I mean. Yes, black holes don't have singularities. I thought I made that clear.
Couldn't agree more.. I know this will be really controversial but I wonder if someday we might see a reputable institute like RI use AI to create a presentation from Einstein on his theories of relativity.
@@SebastianBeresniewicz there are a deluge of channels that plague RUclips with that sort of prattle already. What you have proposed is the antithesis of what this channel represents.
Ah, gotcha. Wasn't aware and I think I agree. I thought about it a little bit more after your comment and my first thought was "well what if it's a reputable institute like the RI that reviewed the presentation before posting it? Wouldnt that possibly help to allow us to see things like Einstein or Newton speak? Who wouldnt want that?" Then I realized that even at a place like the RI there are still imperfect humans and maybe one might disagree with one small thing either would say and discard it and who knows what that would do to the accuracy of the representation of someone long gone.
@@SebastianBeresniewicz I dunno about any of that, but the tradition of RI is having some of the most brilliant minds from the world share a glimpse of the farthest reaches of our knowledge. AI, on the other hand, operates only effectively within the confines of well known information. Also, there is no precedence for RI to replace a human presentation/speaker with AI, the closest you could get are speeches from the actual people that made the AI technology- that you are excited about today- many years ago, themselves. AI is a hammer, not a robot that does everything, but one tool in humanities tool bag, and it would do many good to stop seeing the world as suddenly made of nails. With respect.
I have to admit that of the couple dozen or more presentations I've seen about black holes, this one was definitely near the top of the list. Simply because he mentioned about half a dozen names from the history of the study of black holes that I'd _never_ heard before. Doesn't sound like much of a detail, but I can't help thinking that I've come away with a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject than I ever have before. GOOD SHOW!!!
That is exaclty what I was thinking! I watched so many videos on this topic and did think "what could there be, which I have not heard before." But it turned out to be the opposite, a whole new perspective!
Fab lecture Marcus, your enthusiasm for the fascinating subject of black holes shines is easily felt. I hope, as I am sure you do, that some brilliant little mind is stirred to start wondering about them and eventually shed more of nature's mysteries, who knows, maybe even change the existing paradigm of space time as Einstein did to Newton in 1915
This is a wonderful historical account about Black Holes, and credits folks like Webster, Schmidt, Ghez and Genzel...I was hoping Marcus would talk about ‘inversion physics’ and how Mary Fowler’s PREM chart is a geophysics example of Dark Energy evidence that can be easily extended to Black Holes; and justify the occasional strange ‘ejections’ noted by Ghez and Genzel!
I've tried quite a few lectures recently where I had to give up after a while due to a dreadful speaker. What a refreshing change to hear someone who can speak well, present well and doesn't have a horrible voice. {:o:O:} _(Edited for tyops)_
The presenters are mostly professional scientists, not professional talkers. Which is a good thing since it’s science we’re here for. The internet abounds with charismatic Ted talkers if that’s your jam.
In an episode of Star Trek produced in 1966, they encounterd what they called a "black star", one year before the term "black hole" was introduced. Amazing isn't it.
It must have been in the air! The Russians had called them "frozen stars", but it never caught on. "Black hole" caught the imagination. Incidentally, John Wheeler was also responsible for the term "wormhole", for a shortcut through space-time.
What a beautiful lecture. Think about the next channel is about flat earth- but you tube has some of the best tv I’ve seen. My knowledge hasn’t been greater than now 🎸😊and I listen to scientists at least two hours every day
Very good question. There is a huge disparity between the rate of flow of time for someone falling towards a black hole - they are in free-fall and experiencing no gravity - and someone observing that person falling towards the black hole. Whereas the person falling goes through the event horizon and meets the singularity (or whatever is at the heart of a black hole), from an outside perspective, they seem to take an infinite amount of time and so never pass through. This also means that, when the precursor star collapses to form a black hole, from an outside observer's perspective, the event horizon never forms. Black holes ar weird!
. Thankyou for your reply . Do you think that from the point of view of the observer falling into the black hole that the extreme time dilation means he never sees him self cross the boundary , but sees the evaporation of the black hole due to hawking radiation, causing him to ride the ( evaporating ) event horizon ..eventually to the centre. I find this thought experiment mind blowing ,
@@MegaDeano1963 For someone free-falling into a black hole, they themselves experience no gravity and so no time dilation. It's only someone outside the hole watching them fall in who sees the time dilation. So the person falling in passes the event horizon quite quickly. (BTW, the fact that a free-falling person experiences no gravity Einstein called "the happiest thought of his life" and it was a key step on the road to his theory of gravity of 1915). As for Hawking radiation, this is impossibly feeble and undetectable for stellar-mass or supermassive black holes. However, it would be significant for very small, primordial, black holes, which we don't know exist.
7:45... note: Schwarzschild had three children with his wife Elise: Agathe Thornton (1910-2006) emigrated to Great Britain in 1933. In 1946, she moved to New Zealand, where she became a classics professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin. Martin Schwarzschild (1912-1997) became a professor of astronomy at Princeton University. Alfred Schwarzschild (1914-1944) remained in Nazi Germany and was murdered during the Holocaust. Sad...
Magnetic force is either syn-gravity force or anti-gravity force for the particles moving circular, depending on the relative position towards North pole or South pole and the gravity plane on which the particles circle around.
Strictly speaking, yes. But Sagittarius A* is generating power at a fantastically low rate compared to the supermassive black holes in "active" galaxies, which are defined as galaxies whose light output comes principally not from stars but from the super-hot accretion disk around a central supermassive black hole. Ysing that definition, Sagittarius A* is as far from active as it is possible to be!
So the gravitational waves at source would have been huge. Would they have been damaging to nearby solar systems ? I can image that if the amplitude of the wave is high it could potentially rip a planet to pieces.
Definitely. You would not want to be anywhere near the tsunami of tortured space-time spreading out from the merger of two black holes! If the two black holes were each the relic from a supernova explosion, there would likely be no planetary systems close by. But the gravitational waves might have a serious affect on any planetary systems around stars close to the merger.
7:40 Schwarzschild (Black Shield) is in my opinion the most bad-ass name for someone who first postulated the existence of the event horizon of a black hole.
@@jimmyzhao2673 If had seen Galcutta (as I did), you would understand. The filth, squalor, the smells and the appalling living conditions were breath taking hence the name.
You are right. The problem, however, is always what you can fit in in an hour! But I would say that Michell's idea was based on faulty reasoning because he wrongly assumed that such bodies could exist without being crushed by their own prodigious gravity down to tiny dense points. It required Einstein’s theory of gravity, which supplanted Newton’s, to truly describe what happens when gravity becomes immensely strong.
There are no black holes. In 1939 Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
So “singularity” just means “oops this is wrong’. Or maybe it just means “we don’t know?” What an interesting lecture. Taking such complex ideas and making them understandable to a dim wit like me is no mean feat!
Yes. A singularity is a mathematical fiction. It cannot possibly exist in the real world. It is telling us that a theory has been stretched beyond the point where it has anything sensible to say and that we need a better theory.
Strictly speaking, an electron and proton do not "merge" to create a neutron. In a process known as "inverse beta decay", an electron reacts with a proton to create a neutron and a neutrino.
Do you mean "dark matter", the stuff that outweighs the visible stars and galaxies by a factor of 6? It's identity is one of the biggest outstanding mysteries of science.
People talk a lot about modern papers being peer reviewed (or not) as though this actually means something. Einsteins most famous work was not peer reviewed in this way Crick and Watson were not peer reviewed in this way The vast majority of scientific discovery and advancement was not peer reviewed in this way... yet we advanced nonetheless.
@@andrewlarking7492 well, when you think that scientific research and the sharing of knowledge goes back centuries (or even further), and modern "peer review" goes back a few decades at most, then, yes, it's quite clear that more discoveries about our world have been made without modern "peer review" than with it. Can you prove this is not correct?
This is another of the Einstein science facts that isn’t Einstein or facts. What most famous work btw? His annus mirabilis work was in Annalen Der Physik which was known for not rejecting work and not being referred. Einstein got very angry in America when his work was refereed. Annalen printed plenty of bad science along with the great. As for refereeing, Einstein in 1914 was a very demanding referee for the Prussian Academy of Science while none of his papers would ever be reviewed or refereed because he like all professors was untouchable.
That's an interesting observation. The German journals where Einstein first published were, as you say, not peer-reviewed. German science relied on other scientists pointing out something was wrong after it was published. Once he moved to America, Einstein was shocked that his work would be peer reviewed and even withdrew a paper (on gravitational waves) in a fit of pique! The scientific world has concluded, however, that it is better to filter out papers that are wrong before publication than after publication.
According to Schwarzschild’s correspondence with his wife, Else, he was posted to Mulhouse by the end of September 1915. Although he was relocated elsewhere, he was back in Mulhouse by 1 December 1915.
So if most star systems are binary or more, wouldnt that likely make us early life to the universe? Wont all multi star systems eventually become single star systems through absorbing their partner?
It all depends on how far apart the stars in, for instance, a binary system are. If they are far enough apart, they will never spiral together in lss than the age of the universe.
As a skeptic of black hole existence, I question whether black holes as traditionally conceived can exist, given the implications of gravitational time dilation. Here’s my reasoning: 1. Formation Paradox Due to Time Dilation: If black holes truly exist, their formation should theoretically be observable. However, due to gravitational time dilation, an outside observer would never actually witness the complete formation of an event horizon. As matter approaches the event horizon, time dilation would cause the emitted light to slow down infinitely, red-shifting it to the point of invisibility. This means that, from our perspective, we’d only ever see the collapsing matter asymptotically approaching the event horizon but never actually crossing it. In other words, the supposed 'black hole' might be an illusion created by matter that’s perpetually on the brink of collapsing but never actually does so, fading into near-invisibility instead of becoming a true black hole. 2. Implications for the Information Paradox: If no event horizon truly forms, then perhaps the information paradox itself doesn’t arise. The information contained within the collapsing matter would theoretically still be accessible, though highly red-shifted and dimmed, without the need for speculative mechanisms like Hawking radiation to 'release' this information. This interpretation could sidestep the paradox altogether. 3. Alternative Explanation for Observed Phenomena: The effects we currently attribute to black holes, like intense gravitational fields and X-ray emissions, could instead be due to the dense matter near what we perceive as the event horizon. Without assuming an actual black hole exists, these phenomena might be explained as the outcomes of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions in regions with high mass density, eliminating the need to assume a singularity or event horizon. In summary, if we can never observe the complete formation of an event horizon due to time dilation, then perhaps black holes don’t truly form in the way they’re theorized. Instead, what we perceive could be a persistent state of matter near collapse, not a black hole at all. This perspective, I believe, opens the door to alternative models that better align with observable phenomena without invoking paradoxes.
You make a very good point. And it was echoed by Stephen Hawking. If, to an outside observer, an event horizon takes an infinite time to form, in practice it is unobservable. And, if it is unobservable, does it have any right to be considerd real. The interesting thing is what practical difference does this have to our general observations of black holes and can it be detected?
22:31 "exactly the same thing happens with light" in 2024 is the RI teaching luminiferous ether? Doppler calculations for light and sound are different.
Either you are maliciously pedantic because you want to appear smart (it backfired), or you fail to understand the concept well enough to be able to generalise it. The broad concept is the same for light and sound... a frequency shift based on the direction and speed of travel of a source relative to the observer.
I used to love Marcus, but his political opinions vs. other peoples views seem to have overtaken him. He often posts things on social media without proper research or understanding, and he's reluctant to consider opposing viewpoints. No journalist, scientist, or popular science writer should be completely wedded to one perspective. Which now prevents me from being a fan, and to which is why I believe he is haemorrhaging followers That said, his book on gravity is absolutely magnificent. Wish him luck
PS Everyone on Twitter is haemorrhaging followers as people dump Musk. But for me this is more than compensated by an increase in followers on bluesky.
Glad you enjoy my books. But I live in the world and am affected by things in the world. Politics affects every aspect of my life and everyone else's life. My social media is me and all the things that concern me. I have many friends whose views I do not agree with but whom I still count as friends.
@marcuschown1104 Your books are great, and the one on gravity is up there with the best! I mean the best I love freedom of speech and the right to express our opinions. I also respect polite feedback, which I hope this comes across as. Whether useful or just complete gibberish, it’s all part of the conversation. #RespectfulDialogue #FreedomOfSpeech"
The RI paid me to give a talk. Incredibly, the average income of a full-time writer in the UK - according to the Society of Authors - is ~£7000 per year. It's really hard to make a living so authors have to take any opportunity they can to sell their books.
@@marcuschown1104 Glad there is a speaker stipend. Sorry to hear about the dire state of writers in the UK. Sadly I think it won't improve for creative professions anywhere given worldwide trends.
Fire and ice. You know when you're cold from occupational space within your body starts shivering from rapid heat loss. Standing next to an external magnetic field like fire you absorb heat. All his statements are conjecture without physics. What force caused iron to collapse in on itself. A hole in your pocket let's change fall out. Empty space means no heat. It's a sphere of absolute zero heat energy within its core or nucleus is more probability than a hole. It actually works for external magnetic fields. Centrifugal force outside of the sphere or core cycling circulation centrifugal force. Flowing currents around these massive external magnetic fields. Hurricanes and tornadoes are centrifugal forces of magnetism flowing currents quantumized around heat energy cores in equalization to pressure within atmospheres. Space is the counter to clockwise with cold space itself as the core. Internal magnetic fields are spherical and external magnetic fields are spherical but the flow is not being recycled through the nucleus or core like quantum internal magnetic fields grounding currents. External magnetic fields don't ground currents they spread outward force of pressure known as expansion of occupational space as mass expands outward force of pressure. Magnetism holding galaxies together in equalization to force and distance traveling cycling circulation centrifugal force.
Stars dont burn fuel. Sure we know you dont literally mean that but people against science or people who dont know better use that mistake as a steppung stone to incredulity.
Everything needs a source of energy to drive it and in every case that source of energy is finite. The finite source of energy of fhe Sun - which is what I mean by “fuel” - is hydrogen, the lightest and most common element in the universe. In a series of nuclear reactions, the sun transforms the cores, or “nuclei”, of hydrogen atoms into the nuclei of helium, the second lightest element, the by product being the energy of sunlight.
It's a external magnetic field flowing currents around these massive external magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field like a record on a record player centrifugal force of magnetism repulsion. Internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core like earth's internal quantum magnetic fields accumulation of quaternary elements combined synchronization of amplification of magnetism bonding. External heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as potential renewable heat energy when absorbed into internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core flow outside the monopoles of pure fabric of cold space repulsion within its core or nucleus. Heat and cold don't mix. They are anti-matter matter. Mass is neutralized occupational space as outward force of pressure within mass as occupational space neutralized by heat cycling circulation centrifugal force faster within mass. External currents flowing around these massive external magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field in equalization to repulsion within and without entanglement of mass as magnetism magnifying heat propulsion faster than normal momentum of space itself. All heat. Two physical properties of physics. Cold space and heat singularities. Heat is not a wasted byproduct. It is the universal force of pressure known as propulsion from repulsion into repulsion as magnetism. All mass is magnetic. Centrifugal force held in magnetism is why we have appliances that remove heat and restore heat. We burn calories as fuel for fire or warmth. We disolve mass as fire as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass from mass. Rockets use heat energy for propulsion. Light doesn't travel. Lightning burns through atmospheric gasses disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire lighting up the sky instantaneously like campfires slowly disolving internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire lighting up the surrounding atmospheres. Educated repeatedly by constant denial of observations. We burn calories and mass as fuel for fire or warmth. Everything is currents grounding through mass towards earth's internal magnetic field grounding currents through its nucleus or core. Mass falls in equalization to magnetism. Impaction force of currents flowing. The greater the flow the greater the impaction of outward force of pressure. Magnetism is amplification of quaternary magnetism amplification as solidity when displacement can't be overcome by impaction force of currents colliding. Magnetic fields interactions with other magnetic fields. When meteorites exceed earth's internal magnetic field grounding currents mass starts disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as meteorites burn calories as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass.
The ignition of rockets creates gas. The force of the gas being expelled creates a reaction force that propels the rocket in the opposite direction. You were wrong about that which casts doubt on everything you have said. And you have never heard of paragaphs.
Thanks. However, yhe evidence is overwhelming that black holes exist - much to the surprise and shock of physicists, who, like Einstein, hoped that they would not exist!
@@marcuschown1104 On the contrary, there is no single shred of evidence for the existence of black holes. Please name one piece of evidence. I am curious.....
There is a history to their discovery, I'm sure you'd admit that. Whether you think he covered it in sufficient depth in that lecture is up for debate but it is a RI lecture so you were only ever going to get a broad brush account
I’m skeptical the children dying in Gaza know, or care, what a black hole is. Hyperbole is only useful when it doesn’t distract from the point you are trying to make.
p.s. that imagination somehow ponders if there's a link between space expanding an the idea that light may not escape from the warping of space-time by black holes. What if space 'flows out' instead of 'light falling in'. Just an idea my intelect is unequiped to aswer. Sadly, should've chosen physics as a profession 😅
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
It was such a privilege to give a talk at the Royal Institution, where Michael Faraday created the first electric motor in 1821 and first generated electricity from magnetism - the basis of millions of electrical generators across the world today - in 1831. By the door to the lecture theatre is an oil painting of Faraday lecturing, and, in a glass case, the very instruments he used in that demonstration!
@@marcuschown1104 It kept me watching to the end.Full of that lovely knowledge😍Thank u 😍
Stars dont burn fuel. Black holes dont have singularities.
Thank yoy
@@animalbird9436 Glad you liked it. Thank you.
@@gymhayes4613 Stars convert hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, the by product of which is sunlight. Strictly speaking this is not "burning". You are right. But everyone knows what I mean. Yes, black holes don't have singularities. I thought I made that clear.
Fantastic presentation. We all owe such a huge thanks to RI for coordinating such world class speakers for us to digest every week.
Couldn't agree more.. I know this will be really controversial but I wonder if someday we might see a reputable institute like RI use AI to create a presentation from Einstein on his theories of relativity.
@@SebastianBeresniewicz there are a deluge of channels that plague RUclips with that sort of prattle already.
What you have proposed is the antithesis of what this channel represents.
Ah, gotcha. Wasn't aware and I think I agree.
I thought about it a little bit more after your comment and my first thought was "well what if it's a reputable institute like the RI that reviewed the presentation before posting it? Wouldnt that possibly help to allow us to see things like Einstein or Newton speak? Who wouldnt want that?"
Then I realized that even at a place like the RI there are still imperfect humans and maybe one might disagree with one small thing either would say and discard it and who knows what that would do to the accuracy of the representation of someone long gone.
@@SebastianBeresniewicz I dunno about any of that, but the tradition of RI is having some of the most brilliant minds from the world share a glimpse of the farthest reaches of our knowledge. AI, on the other hand, operates only effectively within the confines of well known information.
Also, there is no precedence for RI to replace a human presentation/speaker with AI, the closest you could get are speeches from the actual people that made the AI technology- that you are excited about today- many years ago, themselves.
AI is a hammer, not a robot that does everything, but one tool in humanities tool bag, and it would do many good to stop seeing the world as suddenly made of nails. With respect.
@@SebastianBeresniewiczArtificial intelligence is only a good thing when it's replacing genuine stupidity.
I have to admit that of the couple dozen or more presentations I've seen about black holes, this one was definitely near the top of the list. Simply because he mentioned about half a dozen names from the history of the study of black holes that I'd _never_ heard before. Doesn't sound like much of a detail, but I can't help thinking that I've come away with a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject than I ever have before. GOOD SHOW!!!
I am so pleased. Thank you.
That is exaclty what I was thinking! I watched so many videos on this topic and did think "what could there be, which I have not heard before." But it turned out to be the opposite, a whole new perspective!
@@marcuschown1104 Same for me Marcus. Whole load of information I was unaware of! Amazing Lecture
@@thirdeyeblind6369 Thank you,
absolutely brilliant informative and delivered in a superb fashion
Albino u miss me 😊
Thank you.
Fab lecture Marcus, your enthusiasm for the fascinating subject of black holes shines is easily felt. I hope, as I am sure you do, that some brilliant little mind is stirred to start wondering about them and eventually shed more of nature's mysteries, who knows, maybe even change the existing paradigm of space time as Einstein did to Newton in 1915
these talks are nice, also love the auditorium, the space is super nice!
That was terrific 👏, I love these programs. Thank you very much. It's much appreciated by myself and all. It was spectacular. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Thanks.
This is a wonderful historical account about Black Holes, and credits folks like Webster, Schmidt, Ghez and Genzel...I was hoping Marcus would talk about ‘inversion physics’ and how Mary Fowler’s PREM chart is a geophysics example of Dark Energy evidence that can be easily extended to Black Holes; and justify the occasional strange ‘ejections’ noted by Ghez and Genzel!
Glad you liked it. The difficult thing, with only an hour to talk, is what to keep in and what to leave out!
I've tried quite a few lectures recently where I had to give up after a while due to a dreadful speaker. What a refreshing change to hear someone who can speak well, present well and doesn't have a horrible voice.
{:o:O:}
_(Edited for tyops)_
The art forger presentation? Dreadful.
The presenters are mostly professional scientists, not professional talkers. Which is a good thing since it’s science we’re here for. The internet abounds with charismatic Ted talkers if that’s your jam.
Thanks.
Thanks,
Can you come on again an do a presentation on your book quantum theory can't hurt you please Marcus great talk by the way cheers yessir
Would love to. I have suggested to the RI that next year I come and talk about "100 years of quantum weirdness".
Very interesting presentation! Thank you a lot!
Thank you
Do people still think that Einstein sold out when he went from acoustic folk music to electric rock?
Some do, but they're in a relative minority.
He played both, because the two genres are entangled.
He was famous long ago
_"Judas!"_ they cried.
{:o:O:}
i'm sure theres a joke about string theory here somewhere....
A wonderful talk. Thank you. Worth it for the Cygnus X-1 story alone!
Thank you.
In an episode of Star Trek produced in 1966, they encounterd what they called a "black star", one year before the term "black hole" was introduced. Amazing isn't it.
It must have been in the air! The Russians had called them "frozen stars", but it never caught on. "Black hole" caught the imagination. Incidentally, John Wheeler was also responsible for the term "wormhole", for a shortcut through space-time.
Superb presentation 👏 👌 👍
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good explanation, very enjoyable.
Thank you
Fascinating lecture.
Thank you.
Excellent thank you
Thank you.
Fascinating🎉
Thank you.
Loved it
Thanks.
This lecture closely resemble Mandelbrot set's 'asymptotic limit' that shows an evaporating BH with a 'pop', as every singularity can be 'normalized'.
Excellent talk
Thnak you.
WoW, this is poetic.
Nice for it to be appreciated!
What a beautiful lecture. Think about the next channel is about flat earth- but you tube has some of the best tv I’ve seen. My knowledge hasn’t been greater than now 🎸😊and I listen to scientists at least two hours every day
Thanks.
Genuine question. How does anything pass the event horizon of a BH, if the time dilation due to gravity at the event horizon is infinite .
Very good question. There is a huge disparity between the rate of flow of time for someone falling towards a black hole - they are in free-fall and experiencing no gravity - and someone observing that person falling towards the black hole. Whereas the person falling goes through the event horizon and meets the singularity (or whatever is at the heart of a black hole), from an outside perspective, they seem to take an infinite amount of time and so never pass through. This also means that, when the precursor star collapses to form a black hole, from an outside observer's perspective, the event horizon never forms. Black holes ar weird!
. Thankyou for your reply . Do you think that from the point of view of the observer falling into the black hole that the extreme time dilation means he never sees him self cross the boundary , but sees the evaporation of the black hole due to hawking radiation, causing him to ride the ( evaporating ) event horizon ..eventually to the centre. I find this thought experiment mind blowing ,
@@MegaDeano1963 For someone free-falling into a black hole, they themselves experience no gravity and so no time dilation. It's only someone outside the hole watching them fall in who sees the time dilation. So the person falling in passes the event horizon quite quickly. (BTW, the fact that a free-falling person experiences no gravity Einstein called "the happiest thought of his life" and it was a key step on the road to his theory of gravity of 1915). As for Hawking radiation, this is impossibly feeble and undetectable for stellar-mass or supermassive black holes. However, it would be significant for very small, primordial, black holes, which we don't know exist.
@marcuschown1104 that is super interesting and totally not intuitive. Cheers
7:45... note: Schwarzschild had three children with his wife Elise: Agathe Thornton (1910-2006) emigrated to Great Britain in 1933. In 1946, she moved to New Zealand, where she became a classics professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin. Martin Schwarzschild (1912-1997) became a professor of astronomy at Princeton University.
Alfred Schwarzschild (1914-1944) remained in Nazi Germany and was murdered during the Holocaust. Sad...
Magnetic force is either syn-gravity force or anti-gravity force for the particles moving circular, depending on the relative position towards North pole or South pole and the gravity plane on which the particles circle around.
55:45 Amen to that, brother!
Thanks.
Brilliant watch❤ Enjoyed that Thank you❤If you see Hot plasma on sag A stars pic.Then it is an active Blackhole isn't it🤔😊
Strictly speaking, yes. But Sagittarius A* is generating power at a fantastically low rate compared to the supermassive black holes in "active" galaxies, which are defined as galaxies whose light output comes principally not from stars but from the super-hot accretion disk around a central supermassive black hole. Ysing that definition, Sagittarius A* is as far from active as it is possible to be!
So the gravitational waves at source would have been huge. Would they have been damaging to nearby solar systems ? I can image that if the amplitude of the wave is high it could potentially rip a planet to pieces.
Definitely. You would not want to be anywhere near the tsunami of tortured space-time spreading out from the merger of two black holes! If the two black holes were each the relic from a supernova explosion, there would likely be no planetary systems close by. But the gravitational waves might have a serious affect on any planetary systems around stars close to the merger.
7:40 Schwarzschild (Black Shield) is in my opinion the most bad-ass name for someone who first postulated the existence of the event horizon of a black hole.
Agree.
If memory serves, I believe that the Brits, (back in the old days) called a section of Calcutta, India, "the black hole of Calcutta".
Why did they do that ?
@@jimmyzhao2673 If had seen Galcutta (as I did), you would understand. The filth, squalor, the smells and the appalling living conditions were breath taking hence the name.
I understood it to be a prison / dungeon that held British POW troops in the mid 1750’s something to do with Tea?
That was a murder hole in a prison, not a section.
@@colley001Correct. It was not an area, it was a place of confinement/imprisonment.
My history with black holes started in 1995 with Sheri.
He could have gone back further.
1783 - John Michell, clergyman, philosopher, scientist, conceived a 'black hole' using Newtonian physics.
You are right. The problem, however, is always what you can fit in in an hour! But I would say that Michell's idea was based on faulty reasoning because he wrongly assumed that such bodies could exist without being crushed by their own prodigious gravity down to tiny dense points. It required Einstein’s theory of gravity, which supplanted Newton’s, to truly describe what happens when gravity becomes immensely strong.
@@marcuschown1104 I really appreciate you giving answers to random comments. Cheers.
There are no black holes. In 1939 Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated.
Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us.
This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Don't give up your day job.
So “singularity” just means “oops this is wrong’. Or maybe it just means “we don’t know?”
What an interesting lecture. Taking such complex ideas and making them understandable to a dim wit like me is no mean feat!
Typically, it means "with our current formulas, something gets divided by zero here".
Yes. A singularity is a mathematical fiction. It cannot possibly exist in the real world. It is telling us that a theory has been stretched beyond the point where it has anything sensible to say and that we need a better theory.
The thing is electron and proton has to merge and make a neutron. And someone has to propose such a thing can happen.
Strictly speaking, an electron and proton do not "merge" to create a neutron. In a process known as "inverse beta decay", an electron reacts with a proton to create a neutron and a neutrino.
God this guy is hilarious and also super smart! :)
Glad to have made you smile!
@marcuschown1104 of course!! Happy to be able to listen to this lecture. Keep up the great work! :D
does this lecture go into the history of the 22 billion pound black hole or what?
Would you believe a history begun with "Before I begin ...?" Even Artie Shaw couldn't get away with that.
No. But you are not the first to have asked this!
❤❤❤❤
Thanks. xx
What about the missing Dogs ? What about the missing Cats ?
Probably more likely to have been eaten by a black hole than immigrants, as claimed by Donald Trump!
nobody remembers the old ones anymore😊
What about the black matter?
Do you mean "dark matter", the stuff that outweighs the visible stars and galaxies by a factor of 6? It's identity is one of the biggest outstanding mysteries of science.
Are they not experimenting on themselves ? Can you tell who the they are by the extraordinary lack of plastic around them ?
People talk a lot about modern papers being peer reviewed (or not) as though this actually means something.
Einsteins most famous work was not peer reviewed in this way
Crick and Watson were not peer reviewed in this way
The vast majority of scientific discovery and advancement was not peer reviewed in this way... yet we advanced nonetheless.
The vast majority? Can you prove that claim?
@@andrewlarking7492 well, when you think that scientific research and the sharing of knowledge goes back centuries (or even further), and modern "peer review" goes back a few decades at most, then, yes, it's quite clear that more discoveries about our world have been made without modern "peer review" than with it.
Can you prove this is not correct?
This is another of the Einstein science facts that isn’t Einstein or facts. What most famous work btw? His annus mirabilis work was in Annalen Der Physik which was known for not rejecting work and not being referred. Einstein got very angry in America when his work was refereed. Annalen printed plenty of bad science along with the great. As for refereeing, Einstein in 1914 was a very demanding referee for the Prussian Academy of Science while none of his papers would ever be reviewed or refereed because he like all professors was untouchable.
That's an interesting observation. The German journals where Einstein first published were, as you say, not peer-reviewed. German science relied on other scientists pointing out something was wrong after it was published. Once he moved to America, Einstein was shocked that his work would be peer reviewed and even withdrew a paper (on gravitational waves) in a fit of pique! The scientific world has concluded, however, that it is better to filter out papers that are wrong before publication than after publication.
6:32 he received a letter from the Eastern Front
According to Schwarzschild’s correspondence with his wife, Else, he was posted to Mulhouse by the end of September 1915. Although he was relocated elsewhere, he was back in Mulhouse by 1 December 1915.
@marcuschown1104 Sir, thank you for your response and in such a timely fashion. I find Schwarzchild's story incredible and enjoyed the presentation
@@kzeich You are very welcome. And thank you.
Hi
Hi
So if most star systems are binary or more, wouldnt that likely make us early life to the universe? Wont all multi star systems eventually become single star systems through absorbing their partner?
You’re assuming all stars are the same age.
It all depends on how far apart the stars in, for instance, a binary system are. If they are far enough apart, they will never spiral together in lss than the age of the universe.
As a skeptic of black hole existence, I question whether black holes as traditionally conceived can exist, given the implications of gravitational time dilation. Here’s my reasoning:
1. Formation Paradox Due to Time Dilation: If black holes truly exist, their formation should theoretically be observable. However, due to gravitational time dilation, an outside observer would never actually witness the complete formation of an event horizon. As matter approaches the event horizon, time dilation would cause the emitted light to slow down infinitely, red-shifting it to the point of invisibility. This means that, from our perspective, we’d only ever see the collapsing matter asymptotically approaching the event horizon but never actually crossing it. In other words, the supposed 'black hole' might be an illusion created by matter that’s perpetually on the brink of collapsing but never actually does so, fading into near-invisibility instead of becoming a true black hole.
2. Implications for the Information Paradox: If no event horizon truly forms, then perhaps the information paradox itself doesn’t arise. The information contained within the collapsing matter would theoretically still be accessible, though highly red-shifted and dimmed, without the need for speculative mechanisms like Hawking radiation to 'release' this information. This interpretation could sidestep the paradox altogether.
3. Alternative Explanation for Observed Phenomena: The effects we currently attribute to black holes, like intense gravitational fields and X-ray emissions, could instead be due to the dense matter near what we perceive as the event horizon. Without assuming an actual black hole exists, these phenomena might be explained as the outcomes of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions in regions with high mass density, eliminating the need to assume a singularity or event horizon.
In summary, if we can never observe the complete formation of an event horizon due to time dilation, then perhaps black holes don’t truly form in the way they’re theorized. Instead, what we perceive could be a persistent state of matter near collapse, not a black hole at all. This perspective, I believe, opens the door to alternative models that better align with observable phenomena without invoking paradoxes.
You make a very good point. And it was echoed by Stephen Hawking. If, to an outside observer, an event horizon takes an infinite time to form, in practice it is unobservable. And, if it is unobservable, does it have any right to be considerd real. The interesting thing is what practical difference does this have to our general observations of black holes and can it be detected?
All these MIT schools putting their books online for anyone surfing the web
Всеобщая структура вселенной и спираль Парьева. Погуглите
Интересный. Спасибо.
22:31 "exactly the same thing happens with light" in 2024 is the RI teaching luminiferous ether? Doppler calculations for light and sound are different.
Either you are maliciously pedantic because you want to appear smart (it backfired), or you fail to understand the concept well enough to be able to generalise it.
The broad concept is the same for light and sound... a frequency shift based on the direction and speed of travel of a source relative to the observer.
I'm merely pointing that the doppler effect applies to all WAVES - that includes waveS in a medium like sound and waves in no medium like light.
🕳️
I used to love Marcus, but his political opinions vs. other peoples views seem to have overtaken him. He often posts things on social media without proper research or understanding, and he's reluctant to consider opposing viewpoints. No journalist, scientist, or popular science writer should be completely wedded to one perspective.
Which now prevents me from being a fan, and to which is why I believe he is haemorrhaging followers
That said, his book on gravity is absolutely magnificent.
Wish him luck
PS
Everyone on Twitter is haemorrhaging followers as people dump Musk. But for me this is more than compensated by an increase in followers on bluesky.
PPS
As a journalist, I always make sure the things i say are evidence-based and often provide the evidence.
Glad you enjoy my books.
But I live in the world and am affected by things in the world. Politics affects every aspect of my life and everyone else's life. My social media is me and all the things that concern me.
I have many friends whose views I do not agree with but whom I still count as friends.
@marcuschown1104 Your books are great, and the one on gravity is up there with the best! I mean the best
I love freedom of speech and the right to express our opinions.
I also respect polite feedback, which I hope this comes across as. Whether useful or just complete gibberish, it’s all part of the conversation.
#RespectfulDialogue #FreedomOfSpeech"
Black holes r full of un-matched socks!
Do speakers pay to give talks at the RI? 99% have a book to plug.
The RI paid me to give a talk. Incredibly, the average income of a full-time writer in the UK - according to the Society of Authors - is ~£7000 per year. It's really hard to make a living so authors have to take any opportunity they can to sell their books.
@@marcuschown1104 Glad there is a speaker stipend. Sorry to hear about the dire state of writers in the UK. Sadly I think it won't improve for creative professions anywhere given worldwide trends.
Fire and ice. You know when you're cold from occupational space within your body starts shivering from rapid heat loss. Standing next to an external magnetic field like fire you absorb heat. All his statements are conjecture without physics. What force caused iron to collapse in on itself. A hole in your pocket let's change fall out. Empty space means no heat. It's a sphere of absolute zero heat energy within its core or nucleus is more probability than a hole. It actually works for external magnetic fields. Centrifugal force outside of the sphere or core cycling circulation centrifugal force. Flowing currents around these massive external magnetic fields. Hurricanes and tornadoes are centrifugal forces of magnetism flowing currents quantumized around heat energy cores in equalization to pressure within atmospheres. Space is the counter to clockwise with cold space itself as the core. Internal magnetic fields are spherical and external magnetic fields are spherical but the flow is not being recycled through the nucleus or core like quantum internal magnetic fields grounding currents. External magnetic fields don't ground currents they spread outward force of pressure known as expansion of occupational space as mass expands outward force of pressure. Magnetism holding galaxies together in equalization to force and distance traveling cycling circulation centrifugal force.
Please seek medical help.
Wrong
Stars dont burn fuel. Sure we know you dont literally mean that but people against science or people who dont know better use that mistake as a steppung stone to incredulity.
Everything needs a source of energy to drive it and in every case that source of energy is finite. The finite source of energy of fhe Sun - which is what I mean by “fuel” - is hydrogen, the lightest and most common element in the universe. In a series of nuclear reactions, the sun transforms the cores, or “nuclei”, of hydrogen atoms into the nuclei of helium, the second lightest element, the by product being the energy of sunlight.
It's a external magnetic field flowing currents around these massive external magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field like a record on a record player centrifugal force of magnetism repulsion. Internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core like earth's internal quantum magnetic fields accumulation of quaternary elements combined synchronization of amplification of magnetism bonding. External heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as potential renewable heat energy when absorbed into internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core flow outside the monopoles of pure fabric of cold space repulsion within its core or nucleus. Heat and cold don't mix. They are anti-matter matter. Mass is neutralized occupational space as outward force of pressure within mass as occupational space neutralized by heat cycling circulation centrifugal force faster within mass. External currents flowing around these massive external magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy within its field in equalization to repulsion within and without entanglement of mass as magnetism magnifying heat propulsion faster than normal momentum of space itself. All heat. Two physical properties of physics. Cold space and heat singularities. Heat is not a wasted byproduct. It is the universal force of pressure known as propulsion from repulsion into repulsion as magnetism. All mass is magnetic. Centrifugal force held in magnetism is why we have appliances that remove heat and restore heat. We burn calories as fuel for fire or warmth. We disolve mass as fire as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass from mass. Rockets use heat energy for propulsion. Light doesn't travel. Lightning burns through atmospheric gasses disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire lighting up the sky instantaneously like campfires slowly disolving internal magnetic fields grounding currents through its nucleus or core as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as fire lighting up the surrounding atmospheres. Educated repeatedly by constant denial of observations. We burn calories and mass as fuel for fire or warmth. Everything is currents grounding through mass towards earth's internal magnetic field grounding currents through its nucleus or core. Mass falls in equalization to magnetism. Impaction force of currents flowing. The greater the flow the greater the impaction of outward force of pressure. Magnetism is amplification of quaternary magnetism amplification as solidity when displacement can't be overcome by impaction force of currents colliding. Magnetic fields interactions with other magnetic fields. When meteorites exceed earth's internal magnetic field grounding currents mass starts disolving into external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass as meteorites burn calories as external heat energy outside of entanglement of mass.
Innit.
The ignition of rockets creates gas. The force of the gas being expelled creates a reaction force that propels the rocket in the opposite direction. You were wrong about that which casts doubt on everything you have said. And you have never heard of paragaphs.
i need a lie down
Naaah, I don't think so.
Beautiful presentation. Only too bad black holes don't exist.....
Thanks. However, yhe evidence is overwhelming that black holes exist - much to the surprise and shock of physicists, who, like Einstein, hoped that they would not exist!
@@marcuschown1104 On the contrary, there is no single shred of evidence for the existence of black holes. Please name one piece of evidence. I am curious.....
Black holes are still theory. We still have yet to actually see one.
The evidence of the existence of black holes out in the universe is overwhelming. We’ve actually even imaged two of them.
@ the “evidence” is a vague description of a phenomenon that has been no where near approached.
How can anybody have the hubris to name anything the history of black holes humans egocentric reflections are just insane sometimes
Nice thesaurus use
@@NathanDudani Huh, would you need a thesaurus for that
There is a history to their discovery, I'm sure you'd admit that. Whether you think he covered it in sufficient depth in that lecture is up for debate but it is a RI lecture so you were only ever going to get a broad brush account
seems like a poorly coded chatbot to me
I think you don’t understand the word “history”.
I’m skeptical the children dying in Gaza know, or care, what a black hole is. Hyperbole is only useful when it doesn’t distract from the point you are trying to make.
Take your politics elsewhere...
Time and a place for everything. This time and this place is reserved for scientific discussions... not politics, please.
@ how scientific was his assertion that everyone knows what black holes are? Did he provide a citation for that claim?
@ do you think the starving children in famine struck areas know or care what black holes are? You are missing the point.
@@lonniehutchinson4310 Even Steven Hawking said in his later years that he didn't think black holes even existed.
Like so many of the Ri presentations I enjoyed the tickle to my (admittedly limited) intelect and (ready to compensate) imagination 😁
p.s. that imagination somehow ponders if there's a link between space expanding an the idea that light may not escape from the warping of space-time by black holes. What if space 'flows out' instead of 'light falling in'. Just an idea my intelect is unequiped to aswer. Sadly, should've chosen physics as a profession 😅
Very pleased!
Time is only relevant to humans on earth.
Wrong. It's very important to astronauts.