Black Holes and the Fundamental Laws of Physics - with Jerome Gauntlett

[@hinchilee9818]

Professor Gauntlett gave the lectures for the General Relativity module for our physics course. Despite having learnt all this already, I still find myself sitting down and listening to him speak about physics! Easily one of the best, articulate and well-prepared lecturers I've ever come across!

[@help.160]

Okay so iam a middle schooler and i want to study physics. I love to hear more about physics and life. This was the best lesson ever . I love this lesson.

[@TheQuallsing]

P

[@bertrandpetyt3330]

1¹1111¹¹111111111111¹11111111111111¹1¹11¹1111111111111111111111111111111111¹11¹111111¹1111111¹1111111¹¹1¹¹1¹¹1¹¹11111111¹1¹111¹11111111¹¹111111111¹11111¹¹111¹¹¹¹1¹¹111¹1¹¹1111¹11111¹¹11111¹111¹1¹1111111111111111111111111¹1¹¹1¹11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111¹11¹1111111111111111111111111¹111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111¹11111111111111111111111111111111111111111

[@whirledpeas3477]

Middle schooler, 🤣

[@yfusion9139]

Not alone.....

[@dormantrabbits]

Keep learning. Maybe we'll be watching your lecture on this channel one day

[@Eztoez]

This guy is a phenomenal teacher. This is the first time I have heard that the singularity inside a black hole is a singularity in time. He made the entire subject approachable and understandable to someone with little math and physics education.

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

I have my own theory that there is no such thing as a singularity. I think Black Holes are just giant neutron stars. They are full of neutrons and they can't collapse because time stands still. Without time - nothing can happen.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@Bobby-fj8mk One would think that a person with such an interesting and important theory would sign their name and address to the revelation, so that the world's press could get in touch with them, to find out the details and the implications. Bobby?

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

@@TheDavidlloydjones - who - me?

[@garysingh9834]

i truly do not believe that anyone on the planet could take that lecture better than him......even though I'm off field here(dentist😅) i tend to have an interest in the topic and almost all of the lecture gave me an insight to what answers I've been looking for years .....hats off professor Jerome!!

[@glennstasse5698]

I never would have had any understanding of what Hawking Radiation is had I not listened to this talk. Just one of many great nuggets free for the asking!

[@vineethvenugopal8613]

One of the best lectures about black holes. Even though it is one of the toughest and mysterious stuff in physics, he did explain it in a very simple way. Thank you Professor for such a wonderful lecture.

[@pacedelacruz4913]

Thank you so much for delineating these subjects and putting these in laymen's terms, enabling EVERYONE to grasp and understand

[@AustinCreed]

I know absolutely nothing about physics but I just recently started learning about black holes and now I’m hooked. Found this lecture and while this is definitely not my area of educational knowledge, I love how he explained things throughout. Made me feel a bit smarter after watching :)

[@mv11000]

What a fantastic speaker, so clear, so detailed, talk so well constructed, thank you for uploading

[@Just_lift_anyone]

@@calvinames8528 ok

[@Garacha222]

@@calvinames8528 am looking forward to your 1+ hour presentation

[@booklover3959]

@@calvinames8528 Yes Moose....but the psychological vacuum created by the material density of the conception in the Neoplatonic sense warps the physical dimension in accord with the ideal construction in the higher domain which renders any human measurement mute. Therefore the conceptual web of the human organism is tied down to a constraint of time and the associated curvature of this complex. Once this ideal realm is created it is perfectly possible for the human mind to get sucked into the vortex of its own creation, a type of a black hole. Therefore the ideal realm becomes reality. Or in other words, if you call a bagel sandwich a pizza then it taste like a pizza because it is now a pizza.

[@jackkessler9876]

@@booklover3959 Shit! That is EXACTLY what I was gonna say!

[@YoutubSUCKZ]

@@calvinames8528 who the fock are you

[@johnnyhavok2.057]

Literally, who would dislike a free University Lecture?! much less 600 people. wow

[@Elintith]

I live for the day when these videos will get 20,000,000 views instead of flashy music videos (which will be forgotten in a year or so)

[@ChristopherSadlowski]

That the LIGO detectors can even be built at all is amazing. That they actually work is even more amazing!

[@sanjoychakroborty81]

The most beautiful explanation about time singularity in the entire internet.

[@kostadinkondev829]

Which is not real is just fary tail so they have something to talk and get paid just brilliant instead of investing in something useful

[@JSSTyger]

@@kostadinkondev829Your grammar is absolutely atrocious. You shouldn't be critiquing.

[@as7river]

The experiment with the clip and the magnet at 23:00 left me genuinely shocked. I never actually thought of comparing the gravitational force of Earth with a magnet the size of my thumb. Like he said, it sounds like a simple, meaningless experiment. But it does show without question that gravity is by far weaker than we usually think.

[@lordofchaosinc.261]

Great talk, I learned a bit about hawking radiation, the tuesday analogy and essentially what the next big projects in cosmology might be. You get a glimpse of how things in science/physics are connected, the theories, how Newton wasn't invalidated but rather being a puzzle piece the next generation built upon. Then having relativity and quantum in parallel until we have more knowledge for the next theory. Then there are observations or experiments which are made by essentially spending money on detectors and accelerators. And with more advanced theories we as consumers get more powerful tools, spaceships, GPS, smartphones, that's the engineering benefit of it.

[@CreativeContention]

I love the way Professor Gauntlett kisses the brilliant words he has just uttered.

[@RabbitBleed]

Thank you. I'm not a fan of that particular noise, like others, but you've changed my perspective, and now I can watch it.

[@stevechristy9355]

Hahahahahahaha omg

[@blapty]

Thank you. Glad to know it wasn't just me being over critical. I found this to be very distracting.

[@eline1072]

We need a compilation of it repeating non stop.

[@nfergistink110]

Lmao 😂👌x

[@paulierymenko4411]

Recall that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. It's a heck of a lot easier to think about acceleration than curved space-time IMO. So, with the acceleration metaphor for gravity in mind, is the following an accurate description of events? Throw a ball up into the air. Our arm's muscle overcomes the ball's weight and gives the ball momentum relative to us. Up it flies. Gravity is not a force, so the ball does not "run out of momentum against the force of gravity and fall back to earth." Instead, is it exactly as if, standing on the earth, our 'floor' is pushing us ever faster upward and outward such that we are being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2, but the ball, not being pushed on by the earth, does not accelerate but rather continues moving uniformly just as it moved the instant it left our hand, with no further forces acting on it, until we, being further accelerated by our connection to the earth, observe the ball seeming to slow its rise, pause, and then change direction to "fall" back down to earth with what appears to us to be a 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. So it's not the ball falling to earth, it's us being accelerated until we overtake the ball's uniform motion. Weird. But okay.

[@bradmcgowan6883]

Just happened upon these lectures. Thank you for making them available to the public. Mr. Gauntletts presentation was incredibly good. Makes me wish I paid more attention in college.

[@jameskeith7608]

pourquoi?

[@PravinPatil41]

Such a deep, clear, concise and simple to understand explanation. Fascinating.

[@TheDancerIta]

Found this in 2020. And since this lecture "we" have also obtained a photograph of a black hole.

[@governmentcheese411]

sorry but no... we did not obtain a picture of a black hole. we obtained a picture of the gases and material orbiting a black hole. NOT the actual hole itself. it is literally impossible to photograph a black hole in anyway other than images of it's surroundings. because a black hole doesn't itself emit anything we can photograph.

[@governmentcheese411]

@Nemesis um... no armchair science please. magnetism, lol.... um.... no. and yes, time does exist and thus there is also space. and yes, they are relative.... because EVERYTHING is relative. literally.... EVERYTHING. hence the term.... "relativity". welcome to life in a 3 dimensional reality. but just for laughs... what do you call the "space" between two objects?

[@frankblack1185]

@Nemesis It is reletive only to those who measure it outside the black hole. Inside the black hole past, present and future probably exist in a higher dimension all together at the same one instant. Similar to The Nexus off star trek.

[@ZeHoSmusician]

@Nemesis Wow, someone's trolling hard... Mr "other people are in Knindergarden" needs to learn the difference between "your/you're"... If you ever grow up, read up about 'scientific theory'... (I presume you liked your own posts, too...because that's what losers do.)

[@fjames208]

True

[@wayne6728]

Great lecture, he explained everything fantastically.

[@JSSTyger]

@@stalzemsty1669He eats Sugar Smacks for breakfast.

[@wilecoyote5757]

Thanks!

[@GibsonLesPaul2273]

That tutting after each sentence is doing my head in.

[@dewfall56]

Thank you for giving that sound a name. Now I know what to call it.

[@Slarti]

Yes, it's a really bad habit and he needs to stop it.

[@dewfall56]

@@Slarti I actually don't mind it. Call me weird, but I find it rather soothing.

[@ksingh7149]

Irritating lol.

[@Raumance]

I was wondering why the video had so many dislikes. Didn't even notice it.

[@HungryWanderer86]

The lecture basically covers how our understanding of the universe and its laws are moving forward..a fascinating topic like Black Holes which are so little known about and so many people talk about them as if they were physicists, makes me wanna punch them in the face when they do that by the way, and I see a lot of comments about lip-smacking and tongue clicking noises, is really your attention span that bad? is your mind really that feeble that you can be distracted from such an amazing topic, by noises we all make?

[@836-e7g]

Serious question, do you feel superior to those commenters?

[@HungryWanderer86]

@@836-e7g HAHAHAHA Yes I'm their god and I'll smite them all with my lightning for being such pretentious shmucks!!

[@percih70]

Stunning lecture, and I really appreciate the professional coverage, a joy to watch. Thank you.

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

Harry Percival. EI8HVB stunning only for those that are ignorant!

[@alexandermartins65]

@ around 11:25 he says imagine space is like a rubber sheet... the way i see it it's more like an infinite ocean and matter inside of it pushes/displaces the water around it just like when you enter a bath tub and water rises. The more massive an object is the stronger the gravity and the more spacetime is bent around it.

[@HRaychin]

I just closed my eyes and enjoyed the ambient utters.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

A demonstration of the art of speaking at its best. Prof. Gauntlett has a superb command of his material, speaks beautifully and rationally, and does not invent arbitrary nonsenses to make his facts and his ideas, which he distinguishes well, fit into any arbitrary plan. A very fine and responsible teacher! He speaks the macro and quantum views being unconnected in the concepts we have achieved so far with elegance and precision from 47:33.

[@eriksmith33]

A brilliant and concise lecture. Thank you for sharing it.

[@rowanvolvo5454]

Perhaps my biggest peeve of all time: Einstein did not CONCLUDE that the speed of light was constant. He INTERPRETED the constant speed of light that physicists of the time kept observing.

[@suplerb]

When not even one person giggled at “studying the motion of Uranus”

[@liamdienemann8937]

I did xD

[@noahwilliams2662]

they were all hoping no one would notice the klingons

[@Electronic424]

I wish more people pronounced it as 'Ur-uh-ness' it sounds far more mysterious and ethereal. But nope, your anus.

[@Somerled_1]

@@noahwilliams2662 kling ons hahahahahahahaaaaa

[@blubastud]

I doubted my nerdiness b/c I laughed and no one else did.

[@Pro.mkSportsFitness]

Thank you for a fantastic lecture.

[@TheQuallsing]

l mm m pååkåup pååkåup puh händige problem opinion å å ljusterö ljusterö och åkte hem honom att han är en fin fin p r och påverka medlemsstaternas å på påtp så n å vad ii å föri öl öl är håhåjaja tvivlar ejnån å kommentar sökbar ny nu nu och och och och åkp the ijj en jagpjj k att jag k jag och och vad lördag ljusterö och åkte åkte hem hem från jobbet ok ok vad lördag ö få pupjuouu å fy medlemsstaternas territorier upp e ok sovapu nui hos min mamma oj då å u

[@Jersaaaa]

@@TheQuallsing ???

[@jaakkooksa5374]

11:35 Here the idea that in GR gravity is understood as curvature of spacetime and not a force in Newtonian sense is explained by an analogy which assumes that gravity is a force in Newtonian sense :-)

[@jackkessler9876]

I agree. That was sloppy. A clearer image is that everything moves in a straight line and that the space they travel in is curved. The straight line in curved space image makes the most sense to me.

[@mindofmayhem.]

I found this lecture to be lip smacking good.

[@dialupsyndrome1910]

-OK Internet- ha!

[@KrustyKlown]

Great speaker, minus the lip smacking .....geeesh, horrible habit

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

Eli King Biting the lips, and lip smacking is a signs of uncertainty!

[@JinChohan]

I was peacefully listening until I read this, now I cant help but notice it damnit

[@fatoldpal]

It's killing me

[@nth7485]

Very nice lecture indeed. Captivating, pedagogical, nicely paced. Thanks.

[@gabecerrato2940]

According to the knowledge we have of black holes, I do believe that black holes must be a single particle . However big or small , they couldn't be made up of many particles . They're one of the missing particles .

[@triggerhappyjay4794]

Hmm

[@kev.6149]

Gabe Cerrato singularity

[@kennethchow213]

Mass(in kilograms)=Charge squared(in Coulombs squared) x 10 to the power minus 7 divided by distance(between two charges in meters). Thus Newton's Law Of Universal Gravitation is absolutely equivalent to Coulomb's Law of electromagnetic attraction (or repulsion) and therefore gravity is identical with electromagnetism and quantum gravity is just electromagnetism of the quanta.

[@MarkTillotson]

Electric charge comes in positive and negative varieties though, so its definitely different.

[@kennethchow213]

Newton's intuition (though he declined to hypothesize this) was that gravity attracts at near distances, and cohere, but at greater distances, both attracts and repels( that is both positive and negative charges are acted on at greater distance by gravity). Thus both positive and negative charges are subsumed in Newton's Law of Gravity ( "On the Shoulders of Giants" 2002 edition, page 1160).

[@kennethchow213]

@Reckless Abandon You can derive the equation from the S.I. units equivalence of 1 coulomb = 1 joule / 1 volt.

[@KienDLuu]

If the effect of gravity is instantaneous, how does a gravitational waves work? The very nature of a wave suggests that it propagates from the source which means it takes time for the 'signal' to travel. I'm totally missing something.

[@AngeloXification]

From what I understand, in the lecture around the 12 min mark. The observations Newton made were an emergent property of the curvature of space-time. Newton was right to be suspicious about the observations he made, unfortunately he didn't have the scientific capability of making the types of measurements we can make today. The LIGO detectors are an incredibly advanced engineering and technology accomplishment. I sure wish I could get into the field of physics haha

[@amisfitpuivk]

'instantaneous' would still be limited by the speed of light though I think. I also know space-time itself doesn't have that speed limit, but I think any kind of wave would have that speed limit, which would still make it 'instant' since that the fastest speed information can travel. I think?

[@theodorostsilikis4025]

if sun disappeared now earth would still feel its gravity for 8,3 minutes

[@bluesteel7874]

I heard from another lecture that they confirmed that light and gravity travels at around the same speed because of a star that was detected by Ligo and by observatories. Been binging so I can't remember which video.

[@SabreenSyeed]

Fantastic Lecture to listen to over a cup of tea ☕️! Professor is very eloquent. Thank you for the upload 👍

[@gabecerrato2940]

"T's" up

[@spacenavigator6877]

we need more captivating nerds like jerome

[@TheThirdGerman]

That was an absolutely fantastic lecture. Very clear, very precise. Thank you.

[@jameskeith7608]

Whattttttt????????????????????/

[@williamjayaraj2244]

Excellent lecture about the black holes. Thank you professor.

[@jimmygustavsson458]

Fantastic lecture! Taking something so complex and making it so simple. Im quite earily in my space engineering studies and must say I did not know how the particles formed and collapsed in vacuum before. Thank you professor!

[@jamesp4521]

Thank you *smack* for this wonderful presentation *smack* Professor :)

[@dnelms1]

smack EXACTLY smack THANK YOU!

[@IronWarrior4Ever]

Went about 7 mins in to the video, read your comment, then bam it hit me. Great, now that is all I hear is some blah blah blah SMACK!, blah blah blah SMACK!

[@tyroneli5462]

Jewdo Master 厂，

[@billymanilli]

Sounded like he had 5 or 6 jolly ranchers in his mouth....

[@ryann8680]

"Gravity, my old nemesis, you win again" - Zap Brannigan

[@Calupp]

19:30 pretty cool that the star that passed the closest reached a vertex (point (0,0) on an x^2 parabola) almost exactly at year 2000. just coincidence but a pretty neat one.

[@ballelort87]

No one cares

[@aarishsyed9587]

it might be stimulated.. who knows. :/ Some coincidences are too good to be true

[@liamdienemann8937]

didn't even notice the lip smacking until I read the comments and even after that it didn't bother me!

[@DoggoWillink]

udo dirkschneider I noticed it but it didn’t bother me. That’s just something some people do, including a lot of lecturers.

[@TheWaveofbabies]

udo dirkschneider you weren't really listening then.

[@fungiuse]

UDO: but his lip smacking is better than the "haaa.... haaa" uttered during pauses in between sentences by other speakers !!

[@R369B]

I didn't notice either but after it was pointed out it was all I could hear lol

[@Flapjackbatter]

Polite and considerate people don't do that.

[@AnadiMishraone]

Sir, I have a question and request a video on this and maybe scientist community should concentrate on this too Which is : If a simple star does mass coronal discharge every second and releases million tons of plasma outside in universe, then a) Where does it negate or propagate, b) With reducing mass, according to Newton's law of gravitation, the force of attraction should reduce every second even if by fraction, but in long time run it should result in something. Please make a video on this.

[@cygnus6733]

I've been sick so I put on some lectures to listen to while I rest, I fell asleep and the nextvideos opening theme came on. I think my heart stopped for a moment and sh*t myself...

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

We've made them less deafeningly loud recently. Sorry for the scare!

[@atif512]

As Prof. Gauntlett mentioned different frequency of string would correspond to different particle, so are there infinite types of particle or we have a certain allowed frequency over the strings?

[@jackkessler9876]

As I understand it, which is not much, the vibrations on the string are the equivalent of standing waves on a guitar or cello string. The possibilities are limited to whole number multiples of the fundamental (whole length) vibration of the string. Which is why there are only so many notes in an octave. The analogy turns to shit when one considers that a guitar or cello string can be of any length, but apparently vibrating quantum strings are constrained in what their lengths can be. If they weren't, there would be, as you note, an infinite number of possible particles. There are examples of an infinite series of particles, notably the photon, which has arbitrary values from ultra-long radio waves to blasts-through-concrete gamma rays. The fundamental weakness of the standing wave analogy is that it is just an analogy.

[@ExistentialistDasein]

The opening theme is too loud. I've been following this channel for years, and I jump out of my skin every single time I play a video. Would someone do something about it, please? Thanks.

[@ThePastelAssassin]

KZbin has this function called Auto-Play, where it'll automatically play the next video before you can alter the volume lower. The lecture volume is fine. The intro isn't. I do agree it's minorly cumbersome to have to manually lower the volume specifically for the first 6 seconds of every lecture video but then not have to adjust the volume after.

[@ExistentialistDasein]

Yes, that's what I meant: only the first few seconds when the logo is showing, otherwise I have nothing against the lecture volume as a whole.

[@a_4421]

Agreed!

[@BattleBunny1979]

agreed

[@PonceTheArg]

yup

[@nyidamarsagiri9300]

the most easy to understand explanation for me so far about how these things fundamentally works. Thank you Professor, great talks.

[@zooblestyx]

I understand that he doesn't mean to, and is probably not even aware of it, and being interested in the subject I really, genuinely tried to stay with him, but his constant lip smacking drove me away about half-way through. Please, whoever produces these lectures, please, please, please, make sure to mention this to future lecturers.

[@disneyfx]

rolmfao

[@Ethan-qe7cr]

Fuckn sook

[@ShaunBauidhNoBas]

I thought it was just me but yes it's really off putting. I hope he's aware of it tut tut tut

[@littlelamb56]

Grow some stamina in your brain, specifically in your ability to focus on the main matter at hand. You young people are such passive little snits who can't process any information unless it is cosmetically altered to fit into the tiny crevices in your weak brains. Who on earth would make a remark like this regarding a brilliant presentation on black holes, and get 34 likes? I don't even have to ask how old you are. I know. You are of that generation who couldn't cross the room to open a book to save your lives, and who have never spent more than a nanosecond wondering about anything -- no longer than it takes to google it. String theory describes the spineless spaghetti-like structure of your feeble little minds. May you disappear down into the dense uninformed information-free singularity of your own imploding brains.

[@ZaoJin]

Mary Kim Cool your damn jets, not every young person has a brain made of oatmeal and raisins. I appreciate the reasoning why you'd be so upset, but it's really not the best idea to meet ignorance with angry ranting, and it's definitely not smart to make blanket statements about entire groups of people you don't know anything about. Be more patient with people or you'll find they won't care what you have to say.

[@joethestrat]

Ok so, there appears to be a lot of confusion about the typical & standard "surface of sheet or paper" demonstration we've all seen a lot about black holes. I'd like to clarify (if I can lol... let me know how I do) in common terms. There's a way more complicated and detailed version of what I'm about to attempt to explain (astrophysics, after all duh) but stick with me here: Those demonstrations I mentioned above and others have in these comments (sheet of paper etc etc) demonstrate NOT the structure OR orientation of a black hole, but the *effect* of black holes (Ugh, I'll just leave it at that since... technically almost everything... nevermind.) have on matter/energy/the very fabric of space in a black hole's significant proximity that have somehow came to be close enough to the black hole in question. That particular effect is called gravity. For example: There are different "demonstrations of black holes", using some type of stretchable material (rubber/latex/whatever), stretching it over a frame and putting a dense metal ball bearing in the middle (kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4W8Yn6gmpWsgsk). Understandably, demonstrations like these concerning gravity are easily confused with black holes by the average KZbin viewer. Gravity and black holes, though, are inextricably linked. You can't have a black hole without some type of object being reduced to a certain percent of it's original radius (size, essentially). That specific incredibly tiny percentage of an object's original radius, which our object has now been reduced to has increased it's density. This combination of a massively massively reduced radius causes our object to be unimaginably dense (don't bother, you can't possibly imagine the density :P). In the video I linked above in parenthesis, our incredibly dense, shrunken object (heavy ball bearing put in first) is responsible for creating the "funnel" type of distortion in the rubber/latex/whatever, and the rubber/latex/whatever is space itself. If we wanted to simulate the effect of Earth's gravity, we'd use say a 1 lb ball bearing on the stretchy material. If we wanted a relative comparison to the Earth's ball bearing simulated effect on the latex/rubber/whatever, but for a black hole, we'd use a ball bearing weighing 5 tons and 1/10000th of the size of the Earth ball bearing, which would make the funnel shape much steeper/deeper. And that steeper/deeper funnel shape represents the intensity of the black hole's gravitational strength as opposed to the Earth's gravitational strength - a much, much less steep/deep distortion of the rubber/latex/whatever. Normally, gravity isn't a particularly "strong" force of nature (not important for this type of understanding, keep reading) but in the case of black holes, their (aka our incredibly dense shrunken object) byproduct just by existing in that shrunken and dense state is an incredibly intense amount gravity. This black hole gravity is so strong in intensity that it's unparalleled against everything we know or have seen. Currently, it's impossible for humans to reduce an object like that to generate gravity like a black hole. Can't be done. If we could? We'd be exploring outer space exactly like how starships do in Star Trek - that's the "warp engine", it's warping (compressing) space to "travel" even though the ships don't move (in warp travel anyways), space compresses and expands around the ship and the ship stays still. It does this by (theoretically, on paper it's entirely possible but we don't have the engines capable of performing that much work) warping space like a black hole warps space. *_TLDR_* Direct point of the conversation: The "flat" surface of the rubber/latex/sheet/paper/whatever in the demonstrations "representing" a black hole - it doesn't. It represents the effect of an object with a strong gravitational pull on other objects in it's relevant proximity. *_TLDR2_* No matter what side or angle you approach a black hole from, it'll always look like a black hole from all sides. I tried, but it's an extremely simplified version of a black hole... but for the KZbin comments section? It'll do the job lol.

[@xxXthekevXxx]

I fell asleep listening to this and had awesome scifi dreams about traveling through black holes!

[@Bytrl]

You were dreaming about what we might actually be doing. Pretty insightful. Our perception of the expansion or inflation of the universe would be exactly the same assuming we were collapsing in, rather than far out galaxies moving away. This would also serve to explain dark energy, or how 'empty' space, contains 99% of the energy within the cosmos. I'm convinced our current theories about the nature of our reality are exactly opposite the truth, and were too stubborn to retheorize these fundamental understandings, for fear of reprisal.

[@1WaySafe]

is there a Computer Generated picture of only known or conjectured black holes of the universe ? any possibility of seeing the topographical display in toto ? as it exists at some/any known state? projected with or without "Spin" perhaps outlined in a red outer ring to represent them?

[@jackkessler9876]

Most or all galaxies have a major black hole at their centers. So a map of all the galaxies is also a map of all the supermassive black holes. Google 'Hubble Ultra Deep Field' for the famous photograph.

[@painplayer1614]

My daughter was genuinely being born as I was listening to this. 8 lbs 10 ounces gotta love wireless headphones

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Wow. This might genuinely be the best endorsement we have ever received.

[@tonycrofts4640]

SO WHERE WERE YOU??

[@painplayer1614]

Holding my wifes hand as she pushed lol

[@jackkessler9876]

That is one big baby. Condolences to your wife. Congratulations to you both.

[@gailcirillo3294]

Happy birthday baby

[@JonErikNordstrand]

One of the very best RI-lectures.

[@namelessonewanderland3428]

"Fascinating" "It's coming at us!" "Fascinating" "Run!!!" "Fascinating" "You're being sucked into it!!!" "Fascinatiiiiiiiiiinnnnng"

[@patrickaycock3655]

At 16:30, what does he mean that positively charged matter will neutralize a black hole immediately? I have not heard of that. Unless of course theres some kind of interaction between the EM charge of the black hole and its event horizon and matter caught in the "vortex". (Term used very loosely)

[@jakehop-]

This was excellent. Thank you for offering it to us!

[@chanpol321]

LIGO, The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a large-scale physics experiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves and to develop gravitational-wave observations as an astronomical tool.[1] Two large observatories were built in the United States with the aim of detecting gravitational waves by laser interferometry. These can detect a change in the 4 km mirror spacing of less than a ten-thousandth the charge diameter of a proton, equivalent to measuring the distance from Earth to Proxima Centauri (4.0208x1013km)[2] with an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.[3] The initial LIGO observatories were funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and were conceived, built, and are operated by Caltech and MIT.[4][5] They collected data from 2002 to 2010 but no gravitational waves were detected. The Advanced LIGO Project to enhance the original LIGO detectors began in 2008 and continues to be supported by the NSF, with important contributions from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Max Planck Society of Germany, and the Australian Research Council.[6][7] The improved detectors began operation in 2015. The detection of gravitational waves was reported in 2016 by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo Collaboration with the international participation of scientists from several universities and research institutions. Scientists involved in the project and the analysis of the data for gravitational-wave astronomy are organized by the LSC, which includes more than 1000 scientists worldwide,[8][9][10] as well as 440,000 active Einstein@Home users as of December 2016.[11] Wikipedia

[@neighborlyfiend1484]

It's not lip smacking he's blowing kisses to me while I listen. Ya'll just jealous.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Trust me - even if every word of this is true, not one soul on this earth is jealous.

[@neighborlyfiend1484]

@@chuckschillingvideos Cleaver girl

[@ibuprofen303]

Actually, I am experiencing a different kind of lip smacking in the form of I have some fried chicken in front of me currently. It's "Lip smacking" goooo-ooooooooooodddd.

[@toddgoul5857]

Excellent presentation. The animation of the stars orbiting the galactic black hole was amazing. I also liked how the presenter emphasized Newton's theories were not disproven so much as subsumed into the larger framework of General Relativity. This is one key aspect of scientific progression that is misunderstood by the general populace.

[@kennethchow213]

The zero-point energy emitted might be the origin of the discovered dark energy, which comprise 73% of the total mass of the universe. My surmise is that dark energy then condense into dark matter, which in turn condense into ordinary matter:hydrogen atoms, thus completing an eternal cosmic cycle of matter to energy, and energy to matter.

[@markusheimerl8735]

if you mean hawking radiation by "zero-point energy" this cannot be. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not radiation, as any known form of radiation, that includes the one coming from a black hole, does not behave how they do. Dark Matter seems to only interact through gravity, not any other force. All forms of radiation interact with the electromagnatic field.

[@bluesteel7874]

"my surmise" is bad phrasing. Dark matter and dark energy are theorized because physicist has a general idea of the amount of matter present in the entire universe and the gravitational behaviour suggest there are more "things" than just ordinary matter. Also, matter don't just disappear, you can follow how they evolve from compound to compound and matter to energy. This doesn't mean your theory is wrong though, just that physicist have their ducks in a row, and are most likely justified being puzzled or justified how they postulate ideas.

[@phillyb8347]

Maybe there is no dark matter/energy

[@davidgatzen1543]

At about 32:40 in the video he says that the Gravity waves will hit one detector first and then hit the second detector 10 milliseconds later. This is only true if the gravity wave source is inline with the detectors (and not between them). In general the time between the detections will be from 0 to 10 milliseconds, and will depend on the direction the gravity waves come from. If for example the source creating the gravity waves is equal distance to both detectors, then the gravity waves will reach both detectors at the same time, and the time delay between the two detectors will be zero. This time can be used to tell the direction the gravity waves are coming from. This time will allow you to determine the angle between the gravity source and the line between the detectors. To get the direction in three dimensions you need a second angle, which you can get from a third detector. There is a third detector, named Virgo in Europe, that he did not mention. Maybe he gave the lecture before the third detector was working.

[@jackkessler9876]

Which is one of the many reasons for building a network of LIGO detectors in space. The more of them you have, the narrower the error in the direction of the signal.

[@EricTViking]

Brilliant.

[@sculptor7592]

I have many questions, but first, about the LIGO or interferometer specifically. Does the gravity wave manifest as a space or time distortion or is it a spacetime distortion? Does one arm see a length change or is the wavelength phase modulated or is there difference between looking at it either way over what is happening in the other arm? Is a gravity wave propagated as orthogonal space and time fields analogous to EM waves? Where can I find these answers?

[@ThinkHuman]

Fascinating talk, really brilliant new insights!

[@iNthGineer]

KZbin recommendation machine: Black holes lectures from the RI back to back to back (this is the third it gave me)...Scientifically super interesting, but I can't imagine a more...apocalyptic subject-related recommendation than that! :D

[@nickprohoroff3720]

Its sad to see how Einsteins now disproved theories are still producing such artifice.

[@giantneuralnetwork]

WOAH! Amazing demonstration! 29:09 Had no clue the interference was so sensitive... to a sound wave (moving the lasers right?). That was crazy.

[@knightvertrag]

But the ball goes around the curved sheet because of gravitational force in the first place...so what causes the objects to move in curved spacetime?

[@anivegmin]

In the curved sheet analogy the ball is already moving (in a straight line) before it hits the curve. The curve of spacetime is what causes the ball to change direction/go into orbit/accelerate etc as it takes the shortest/straightest path in that curve of spacetime (which is actually 3 dimensions of frictionless space and 1 dimension of time - spacetime, not the crude analogy of a 2D sheet). In general relativity, gravity is not a force, it is the curvature of spacetime. Any number of different forces could have been initially applied to that object to set it in motion in the first place (a push, an explosion, a collision etc etc). Spacetime is an almost impossible thing to visualise and any analogy is going to fail in some respect. The only true explanation is the mathematics.

[@mrEofPlanetEarth]

Amit Mondal ..INERTIA!!

[@vasylshcherban4825]

Marcos, you are right, it all is irrational BS... The problem is that all physic is irrational BS... Literally... The whole physic is just fully abstract set of rules that has no connection to reality... Except one point... if you follow these abstractions carefully, you will see that they predict what you see in reality very closely.

[@turtle2720]

@@vasylshcherban4825 If physics doesn't apply to the real world then I wonder what device you used to write your comment :)

[@vasylshcherban4825]

@@turtle2720 please read my comment carefully... and you will see that I wrote "you will see that they predict what you see in reality very closely" - where they are abstract rules (laws) of physics... So yes, physics really helps us to build very interesting things (including devices)... but laws of physics (strictly speaking) are abstract. There are no physical entity in real World that represent laws of physics... So shortly speaking, yes, we do apply (abstract) physics to real World. In any case, I am glad that you found my comment... it probably means that you saw video... that is really cool video.

[@Anjii_Kumari]

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point-like particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume... but great lecture 🔥🔥🔥

[@IngolfDahl]

I definitely have not a good understanding of the physics of black holes, but something tells me this guy has neither. I think he should have talked more about the nature of the event horizon, how things falling in to an external observer seem to get stuck there forever, due to the apparent slowing down of the time, due to the gravitational field. So the information that "is lost" when the black hole forms is just "piled up" at the event horizon. As I understand it, the event horizon is just how that central singularity appears to the the external observer, since the deformed space around the black hole cannot be simply mapped to the undeformed space we are used to. He could also have talked about how a black hole is formed: does the event horizon appear at some finite radius, or does it start at zero radius, expanding outwards, pushing all the space and all matter with it out from the center? What happens with the event horizons, and the piled-up matter, when two black holes merge? Will some matter pass into the new black hole, or will it rearrange on the outside of the new event horizon? Remember, that the time "stands still" on the event horizon, so it should in some way be stiff or behave as thick syrup. Or have I misunderstood everything? Probably...

[@Winchestro]

And with "this guy" you mean Professor Gauntlett?

[@IngolfDahl]

@@Winchestro yes

[@amedeofilippi6336]

Ingolf Dahl I believe all matter falling into a black hole I prefer to think of a black sphere whose radius is always higher than the BH one) gets displaced on a thin layer around the sphere and an outside observer could only see that with time getting frozen for him. All mass and all information remains trapped within this superficial layer but this from the outside observer standpoint only. What happens inside the Black sphere we can’t say anything at all. Most probably our universe is the biggest black sphere we are living in.

[@renziorange]

This lecture is mind blowing

[@jojolafrite90]

Don't talk about the "spin" of a black hole! It has a ROTATION... Not the same as the concept of spin in quantum mechanics that has been misunderstood enough in medias already!

[@larriyrnir5756]

to the layman it's the exact same and to most normal people that know this also will also understand you stale wulnut

[@tw0ey3dm4n]

@@larriyrnir5756 why call him a stale walnut when he's pointing out a fact. Sure, for the layman is fine. However, to take it further, specific facts matter... you belland

[@larriyrnir5756]

@@tw0ey3dm4n these talks are for people who don't study these things. you Bellend*

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

a black hole has a rotation like a unicorn has glittery farts.

[@roronoa4443]

is graviton an elemental particle that is somehow responsible for the gravitational field or the geometric orientation of space time or is it a different quantum particle?

[@CutieMoli]

I fell asleep to Vsauce and ended up here....

[@jejunefan17]

I fell asleep to a video of AI learning to play the dinosaur game

[@CutieMoli]

oh yeah, I've seen that one!

[@martjnsakanjger]

Every time I hear about the incompatibility of quantum physics and general relativity I always start thinking about the same metal experiment: what happens if somebody begins to shrink or get bigger at a super fast speed, a speed which would make that one person infinite times smaller than a subatomic particle or infinite times bigger than the biggest galaxies, or even the entire universe, in a short given time of, let's say, few hours? I don't know how physics would work that out, nor if it is possible to write a formula to explain what I'm trying to say, nor if it makes any sense at all, but my intuition tells me that that person would ultimately end up finding herself in the exact same moment in time and space when and where her change of size began to happen. Help please!

[@mathewfonger7048]

My theory is that all matter and space comes from SPACE ITSELF .

[@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747]

Fake! Does that make sense? How can you prove scientifically that something came from nothing? Is that even science?

[@Espectador666]

@@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747 silence. Religion is what is not even science.

[@sbmillward]

Beautiful lecture ... Overwhelming ... Humbling ...

[@hellothere8675]

Really

[@alverdenstop1013]

New drinking game! Take a shot for every lip smack

[@MARTINELSA1]

The guy is obviously handicapped. What a dilemma. Excellent information but unshareable. Because this guy a lip smacking fiend.

[@deathwrenchcustom]

I tried your game. By the fercond somonnn aye wass clooooooo-MARFT!! 🤪🤪🤪

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

First; force in Newton's case is also kinematic and has to do with space and time alone. This you can see if we take F=ma is written as' f=a where f is for a unit mass.. so force is nothing but acceleration.. ie kinematic to do with space and time only. Second, the bending of space and time is the same as action at a distance since the curvature of spacetime due to mass extends to infinity. That is an object at infinity will feel the presence of a mass at the origin but not instantly... this is action at a distance in disguise. In Newton's case f=k/r^2, can be written as F=kR, where R=1/r^2. The first is a nonlinear force in a flat spacetime as in Newton, the second is linear force in a curved(nonlinear) spacetime as as in Einstein. For this reason it is possible to use Newton's law with a finite speed of force by using the retarded integral and we get as a result the linear GR.. the so called gravitomagnetism.

[@AlphaBoss92]

For some reason, I imagine Ed Bassmaster giving this lecture. Would ya just look at it?! *cackle*

[@sergusy]

Hello guys. 23:50. I know it’s being counted the gravity is a weak force. But every one is forgetting we’re staying at six thousand kilometres from the earth centre toward what the gravity is applicable. Comparing this vast distance to the tiny distance between a magnet and a paper clip it is uncertain which of forces are weak. More information you can find on my channel.

[@IKnowYouDidnt]

This dude clicking his tongue is almost as bad as someone scratching a chalkboard...

[@knives564]

He says charged matter would neutralize the black hole so does that mean if we somehow got enough of it to a black hole we could then theoretically get it back to its previous star form or at least to a physically stable form?

[@MarkTillotson]

Neutalize the electric charge of the BH, not netralize the BH itself.

[@NineOneOneFx]

Lecture: Season 1-7 of Game of Thrones Lip smacking: Season 8

[@jackkessler9876]

The lecturer says that black holes have only two properties - mass and spin. So what spins? As the core of a supernova collapses, its angular momentum should be conserved. As it shrinks it should spin faster and faster. When it contracts within its own event horizon, no angular momentum can escape as flying debris or orbiting gas, not even as radiation. As it shrinks further, the velocity of a point on its rotating surface should reach the speed of light. Whereupon it can spin no faster. So what happens? Is this what is meant by the laws of physics breaking down? I'm drowning here. Any help?

[@dwightk.schrute8696]

Not a physicist, but it seems that the rotation slows down due to gravity waves being emanated by the interactions of Inner and Outer event horizons in Kerr's solution (where the singularity itself is actually a 1D ring) - medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-how-can-a-black-holes-singularity-spin-36d7bf94e1ee

[@jackkessler9876]

@@dwightk.schrute8696 Thank you for throwing me that life preserver. But why does it have to be such a confusing and difficult life preserver? There are two event horizons? Can gravity waves escape through an event horizon? But seriously, thanks for the link. I will follow it now.

[@Tonton-Patou]

I find your conception of our universe quite bizzare.

[@burnerjack01]

If time stops passing at C, can anything fall beyond the event horizon? If the speed of G=C at the event horizon, is it faster just beyond the EH?

[@jacobbartell5468]

john hanrahan anything can fall beyond the event horizon, the problem is nothing can get out unless it is going faster than the speed of light. This means that we can’t see anything fall past the event horizon, because the light can’t escape and travel to our eyes. Time stops relative to an outside viewer, but continues normally relative to anyone/thing beyond the event horizon. I hope this helps! -your friendly neighborhood physics major.

[@jackkessler9876]

I have asked that question as well. All I got for an answer was some hand-waving and something about 'frame-dragging". I didn't understand it and I had the impression that the person telling me about it didn't either. The way I understand relativity is with vectors. As one approaches c, the frame rotates in space-time, such that the space dimensions appear to shrink while the time dimension appears to expand / dilate. This precedes Einstein and is known as the Fitzgerald contraction. (There is even a famous limerick about it.) At c, time's arrow becomes perpendicular to what it is to a remote observer. At the event horizon, time appears to stop, as seen by a remote observer. That is why black holes were originally referred to as "frozen stars". By analogy, rotating the time vector still further by passing through the event horizon should mean that time passes backward inside the event horizon. Since space-time curvature should continue to increase as one goes further into the black hole, so should the rate at which time elapses backward. As one nears the singularity, one also nears the origin of time, the Big Bang. Which is exactly what Hawking said about the Big Bang, that it resembled a black hole in reverse. This suggests to me, a complete layman who is not to be taken seriously in the least, that a black hole is a closed time-like loop. My speculation addresses why no theory explains the formation of supermassive black holes. My speculation is that the reason no theory of their formation makes sense, is that they never formed, that they are primordial. My speculation is that the Big Bang was neither symmetrical nor efficient. If Hawking's primordial singularity did not explode symmetrically but instead shattered, fragments of it could have become the supermassive black holes we see at the center of galaxies all over the universe. My authority for this speculation as well as my qualifications for making it, hover close to zero. In my defense, I have heard lectures by a genuine Berkeley faculty cosmologist. When I asked her about how supermassive black holes could have formed, she said no one knows. So why should I? Conversely, the Berkeley professor had some snarky remarks about her mother's mah jongg partners. To whom she had had to explain more than once that she was a cosmologist and not a cosmetologist. Fortunately I am too routinely disheveled to ever be suspected of cosmetology.

[@luchisevera1808]

The most sassy lecture on black holes

[@raycar1165]

Does the apple fall to the ground because it was pulled downward by a theory of undefined cause? Or because its being pushed by an unmeasured amount of various gasses? Do fish think that we are aliens who live in outer space?

[@callumbickle5419]

the lecturer would benefit from a chest mic rather than a cheek mic

[@njugunaian2994]

WONDERFUL LECTURE FROM GRAVITY ALL THE WAY TO STRING THEORY

[@kosherpork3034]

When stars' can't fuse elements anymore, they can't emit light, and when they can't emit light, we can't see them. They are not holes. They are just huge iron balls.

[@gitmoholliday5764]

But space time is isn't a sheet bend in / out of one specific horizontally direction.. it would be bend in all directions around a mass, so an object ( or objects ) would be prone to falling in all possible directions surrounding that specific mass.. ( black hole ) thus an object would normally stay perfectly stabilized ?

[@fungiuse]

someone tell me the theory for what is BELOW (other side) of a black hole..... i.e., if I could fly through space and look from UNDERNEATH (on opposite side) of a black hole, what would I see?? Do I see a big bang coming out? Do I see it as if I were looking at the underside of a black PAN? Or are things also being sucked inside the hole on both opposite sides of the black hole?? No one talks about a view from (the other side) below a black hole... and WHY not ?? !!! In other words, since the Milk Way is a "flattened" spiral disk, and If I fly on one side (below) the Milk Way galaxy, and YOU fly on the other side (above), and we both go towards the CENTER of the Milk Way to LOOK AT THE BLACK HOLE, then on one side you'd see everything falling INTO the black hole. But I would see the OTHER SIDE of the center of Milk Way spiral (below), would I ALSO see everything falling INTO the black hole... OR would I see things coming OUT ??

[@kaioconnellwys966]

giuseppe3010 you would see things coming out

[@stevechristy9355]

You’d see Uranus

[@tedicocota921]

@@stevechristy9355 :)))))...

[@AL-dk1kj]

I am not a professional physicist or cosmologist, so I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that a black hole is perfectly spherical, although it is also described as not actually existing, as it has been reduced to a "point". Therefore, there is no "other side":

[@joethestrat]

@@AL-dk1kj Is correct.

[@johnr4022]

Extremely clear and comprehensible presentation.