Carlo Rovelli and Brian Greene on Black Holes and White Holes

Progress in the last decade has established that black holes are real, but what about their time-reversed cousins, white holes? Renowned physicist and author Carlo Rovelli joins Brian Greene to explore insights into these speculative astrophysical chimera.
This program is included in a 3-part series that explores the wondrous implications of gravity pushed to the extreme, tackling dark energy, black holes and white holes. Renowned researchers join Brian Greene to discuss a range of insights-from confirmed to highly speculative-that extend Einstein’s vision of reality and advance our understanding of fundamental physical laws.
This program is part of the Big Ideas series, supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Participants:
Carlo Rovelli
Moderator:
Brian Greene
WSF Landing Page: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
00:00 - What is a White Hole?
02:00 - Carlo Rovelli's introduction
02:56 - Time reversal invariant and white holes
05:03 - 1930's NY times headline "New Radio Waves Traced To Center of the Milky Way"
08:02 - Robert Oppenheimer and white holes
16:02 - The scales of the universe
23:00 - That sounds like dark matter
25:20 - The best way to view a black hole
27:34 - Is it more meta physics than physics?
29:47 - White Holes as Dark Matter
Part 1 | Gravitational Rainbows: - • Beyond Einstein: Gravi...
Part 2 | Gravitational Echoes - • Beyond Einstein: Gravi...
- SUBSCRIBE to our KZbin Channel and "ring the bell" for all the latest videos from WSF
- VISIT our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com
- LIKE us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- FOLLOW us on Twitter: / worldscifest
#worldsciencefestival #blackhole #briangreene #CarloRovelli #blackhole #physics #whitehole

[@nathanyim]

I just watched Carlo Rovelli's Royal Institute talk on white holes yesterday and had wondered if he'd be a guest any time soon at World Science Festival. What a pleasant surprise to see this pop up one day later!

[@aqu9923]

And what a sweet warm talk it was, love the tiny skirmishing by Carlo attempting to taunt Brian on string😂! How well it ended on the role of mathematics and philosophy in physics. That could also be a next topic of WSF! Thank you

[@jakehunt5764]

A great discussion with some great jovial teasing/ribbing re string theory. So fun!😊

[@coscinaippogrifo]

As an Italian, I'm proud every time I see Rovelli, apart from when I see his shoes...

[@liallhristendorff5218]

😂😂😂😂

[@J.DaviesArt]

It waved this comment at me lol ... I was thinking why like he must have nice shoes 👞

[@jballenger9240]

Dr. Greene the formats of the three videos released on or about 3/9/24 were over far too soon. Hope WSF returns to its longer format and discussions. Thank you for the exceptionally expert guests you invite and the brilliant discussions. What a generous, priceless gift! Look forward to future (hopefully longer, please) episodes and to see the WSF live. May you and all “…live long and prosper…” Prof Greene. ✨

[@user-tm1ec2on6w]

I appreciate the sense of humor.

[@MatteoGariglio]

Brian, I want to express my sincere appreciation for your tireless efforts in sharing the beauty and complexity of physics with the world. Your dedication to advancing scientific literacy and fostering a deeper understanding of the cosmos is truly commendable. Thank you Brian!

[@KarpucMotoring]

Brian green is such a good presenter

[@DC-qn4wz]

Agreed.

[@biffy7]

Explaining white holes really helps understanding black holes. Thanks Dr. Greene. An excellent series.

[@ivie08]

Loved this whole series. I agree with other comments that I wished they would have been longer, just because I wanted to keep watching. Thanks so much as always!

[@Singh-purnodya]

Mathematics is both the queen and hand maiden of all sciences

[@werwar27]

not really, theres fundamental flaws in it which mathematicians admit, and it also is nowhere near the queen or king in all sociological fields but fair enough those are soft sciences, then again neurology is a hard science. basically any science on humans and such is not where math reigns

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

Perhaps, but she may also be the "Siren" which seductively calls to us and has lead us into the "Theory Breakers" where our Theories get destroyed on the rocks of an underlying Reality we may be Mentally unable to comprehend in our present state of evolution. Perhaps.

[@virgilmccabe2828]

@@showmewhyiamwrongalways with the qualifiers, can you not commit to any kind of stance

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

@@virgilmccabe2828 Remember you asked:As I ponder on the state of our understanding of our universe I am listening carefully to those who make it their life’s work to attempt to understand what Nature is telling us, at the deepest levels, because if we understand the foundation of the structure of Reality we will be able to extrapolate everything else that we see around us. So one of the proposed proposed theories for the foundations of our Universe which underpins all we detect around us is “Quantum Field Theory”. It is one of the latest attempts to explain and therefore hopefully understand our Universe i.e. “what makes our Universe tick”. Its DNA is founded on the principles of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics which says the everything we can detect around us is founded on “Probability theory” I.e. Certainty is an illusion and what we would “see” if we were able to look at the Quantum Realm would be every probable “event” floating about in some “soup like” state awaiting an Observer’s Attempt to measure something in our Universe or some other Universe and certainty and Reality only exists for that observer when they make their measurement. I.e. Reality only “emerges” as a result of that measurement. There are those who say that within that soup of uncertainty is an infinity of probabilities which would give rise to an infinity of Universes given the right circumstances. So Quantum Field Theorists look at the Quantum Realm and see it as this soup made up of “fields” which are in a continuous state of fluctuation and only become the particles we observe during the Measurement attempt. They say that these fields are Foundational and therefore contain within their make-up every probable event that is possible. If they are correct then I would only change one thing about their theory and that would be I would replace the word “Probability” with “Possibility”. Use of the word “Probability” gives the impression that there “could be” many other results for a measurement whereas The word “Possibility” infers that any given result is just the result of the Parameters chosen in carrying out the measurement. I.e. when you choose the parameters for your measurement you “force” upon the Quantum Field State only one choice from the infinity of choices available from within the foundational “Quantum Field State. Hence the uncertainty we see exists only in Our Universe founded on the underlying foundational Quantum Field Reality. This would explain why some Theorists say that there is a “Multiverse” and we are just one of an infinite number of possible Universes. They could very well be semantically “correct” while not being “Physically” correct. If, as I currently suspect, the foundation of Reality is something akin to a Quantum Field Soup State(QFSS) of endless possibilities awaiting “Measurement” then there indeed exists the possibility for an “actual” Multiverse, if there exists in Reality an infinite number of observers asking questions of this QFSS. To put it simply If there exists a Foundational Quantum Field S solid stancetate containing an infinite number of possibilities then yes Mathematically it may be possible to extrapolate from such a foundation the existence of an infinite number of possible Realities, but it would not follow logically from such a theory that every possibility was, or could be chosen, in Reality since there would have to be a choice made by an infinite number of observers, or an infinite number of choices made by some random number of observers I.e. the QFSS foundation would exist in perpetuity whether or not it spawns any number of Realities. What I am trying to say with my limited vocabulary is that the certainty we experience in our Realm would not extend to the QFSS Realm, and it should not since they are not equal States. The QFSS can be thought of not as a Probability Generator but as a Possibility Generator. IMHO There is a subtle difference between the two views. In one case we ask a question of the Quantum Realm by preforming an experiment based on the laws governing our Reality and the answer we get implies a level of uncertainty to our result and so we hone our question we get a higher level of certainty. It is as if we are trying to ask a question of someone who speaks a different language than us and as we get better at explaining ourselves they get better at supplying more certainty to their response. This reminds me of the Theory of a “Limit” in Calculus. You can get closer and closer but that is the best you can hope for and you eventually have to settle on an acceptable result. The “Limit” is there but it can also be “not there” depending on certain specific choices made. We, as a Species, have a distaste for uncertainty but in actual fact the only certainty that exists in our Reality is that there is no such thing as certainty beyond our acceptance of some level of uncertainty. So if you took the time to read this rather long-winded response you should see why I hesitate to take a solid stance in most cases.

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

@@virgilmccabe2828 As I ponder on the state of our understanding of our universe I am listening carefully to those who make it their life’s work to attempt to understand what Nature is telling us, at the deepest levels, because if we understand the foundation of the structure of Reality we will be able to extrapolate everything else that we see around us. So one of the proposed proposed theories for the foundations of our Universe which underpins all we detect around us is “Quantum Field Theory”. It is one of the latest attempts to explain and therefore hopefully understand our Universe i.e. “what makes our Universe tick”. Its DNA is founded on the principles of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics which says the everything we can detect around us is founded on “Probability theory” I.e. Certainty is an illusion and what we would “see” if we were able to look at the Quantum Realm would be every probable “event” floating about in some “soup like” state awaiting an Observer’s Attempt to measure something in our Universe or some other Universe and certainty and Reality only exists for that observer when they make their measurement. I.e. Reality only “emerges” as a result of that measurement. There are those who say that within that soup of uncertainty is an infinity of probabilities which would give rise to an infinity of Universes given the right circumstances. So Quantum Field Theorists look at the Quantum Realm and see it as this soup made up of “fields” which are in a continuous state of fluctuation and only become the particles we observe during the Measurement attempt. They say that these field are Foundational and therefore contain within their make-up every probable event that is possible. If they are correct then I would only change one thing about their theory and that would be I would replace the word “Probability” with “Possibility”. Use of the word “Probability” gives the impression that there “could be” many other results for a measurement whereas The word “Possibility” infers that any given result is just the result of the Parameters chosen in carrying out the measurement. I.e. when you choose the parameters for your measurement you “force” upon the Quantum Field State only one choice from the infinity of choices available from within the foundational “Quantum Field State. Hence the uncertainty we see exists only in Our Universe founded on the underlying foundational Quantum Field Reality. This would explain why some Theorists say that there is a “Multiverse” and we are just one of an infinite number of possible Universes. They could very well be semantically “correct” while not being “Physically” correct. If, as I currently suspect, the foundation of Reality is something akin to a Quantum Field Soup State(QFSS) of endless possibilities awaiting “Measurement” then there indeed exists the possibility for an “actual” Multiverse, if there exists in Reality an infinite number of observers asking questions of this QFSS. To put it simply If there exists a Foundational Quantum Field S solid stancetate containing an infinite number of possibilities then yes Mathematically it may be possible to extrapolate from such a foundation the existence of an infinite number of possible Realities, but it would not follow logically from such a theory that every possibility was, or could be chosen, in Reality since there would have to be a choice made by an infinite number of observers, or an infinite number of choices made by some random number of observers I.e. the QFSS foundation would exist in perpetuity whether or not it spawns any number of Realities. What I am trying to say with my limited vocabulary is that the certainty we experience in our Realm would not extend to the QFSS Realm, and it should not since they are not equal States. The QFSS can be thought of not as a Probability Generator but as a Possibility Generator. IMHO There is a subtle difference between the two views. In one case we ask a question of the Quantum Realm by preforming an experiment based on the laws governing our Reality and the answer we get implies a level of uncertainty to our result and so we hone our question we get a higher level of certainty. It is as if we are trying to ask a question of someone who speaks a different language than us and as we get better at explaining ourselves they get better at supplying more certainty to their response. This reminds me of the Theory of a “Limit” in Calculus. You can get closer and closer but that is the best you can hope for and you eventually have to settle on an acceptable result. The “Limit” is there but it can also be “not there” depending on certain specific choices made. We, as a Species, have a distaste for uncertainty but in actual fact the only certainty that exists in our Reality is that there is no such thing as certainty beyond our acceptance of some level of uncertainty. So if you took the time to read this rather long-winded response you should see why I hesitate to take a solid stance in most cases.

[@jmbonanad]

Too short! Always nice to hear Carlo Rovelli

[@Ardalambdion]

Of all the 3 episodes, this is the most speculative.

[@mitseraffej5812]

I guess every accepted scientific fact began life as a speculation. Of course the reverse is not true.

[@kshitizyadav3174]

Please longer videos

[@user-gi7ru7mv2f]

A good talk and coordination!

[@penguinista]

Excellent point about how long it took before Copernicus' ideas took to be recognized.

[@michaelogden5958]

So. Human mathematical constructs? Yes? No? The universe is a big place. WSF is a great resource for ponderers.

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

Math is a LANGUAGE and it is ONE of many to understand and describe and speak of the universe, of nature, etc. Many things cannot be properly spoken of with verbal languages, it has to be math, and even then... 😅😅 There isa book that Einstein himself said was the greatest book, "Number, the language of Science" I think that was the title, by a mathematician he admired, Goddle (?). The one with the "Incompleteness Theorem"

[@edwardyork7396]

Awesome I love these shows where I can go in thinking one thing and come out with my mind changed

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

Was wonderful to meet you when you visited Sydney Brian!

[@objective_psychology]

This was so fun 😂

[@longlostkryptonian5797]

I can’t express enough how much I enjoy the talks!

[@Zariston]

I like Carlo Rovellis theories, especially about time.

[@jballenger9240]

Professors, thank you ☮️

[@Biskawow]

Wish this lasted longer

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Great conversation! Really fun!!

[@michaelragland5872]

Philosophy is both the king and court jester of all sciences.

[@Rebelloraptor]

Depending on whether it's Aristotle (king) or Plato (jester)

[@michaelragland5872]

Is it not through abstraction (Plato) that we seek to understand through empiricism (Aristotle) the essence of things as they are?

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

[Astronomical Units / Planet Order] Vs. [Sun's Gravity Well Acceleration Due To Gravity ("μ" Means "Micro")] Sun's Surface 275,383,142 μm / s² Mercury 39792 μm / s² Venus 11393 μm / s² Earth (1) 5961 μm / s² Mars 2568 μm / s² 2 1490 μm / s² Ceres 780 μm / s² 3 662 μm / s² 4 373 μm / s² 5 238 μm / s² Jupiter 220 μm / s² 6 166 μm / s² 7 122 μm / s² 8 93 μm / s² 9 74 μm / s² Saturn 65 μm / s² 10 60 μm / s² 11 49 μm / s² 12 41 μm / s² 13 35 μm / s² 14 30 μm / s² 15 26 μm / s² 16 23 μm / s² 17 21 μm / s² 18 18 μm / s² 19 17 μm / s² Uranus 16 μm / s² 20 15 μm / s² 21 14 μm / s² 22 12 μm / s²

[@NewWorldBuddha]

Will we ever truly get beyond Eistein? If we do it will surely be a significant paradigm shift in the history and course of physicis.

[@snarzetax]

We will but inevitably, the majority will resist the change until it has gradually, perhaps quietly, converted the most distinguished thinkers.

[@giacomogostifirenze]

Carlo always wears that type of shoes because that way he doesn't have to waste time with STRINGS! 😂

[@croncoder862]

i see what you did there. michio kaku will find you

[@narayankhanal9662]

Love it❤

[@SuperBongface]

Brian Greene deserves a Nobel Prize for doing and being everything that Brian Greene is and does!!! Give the man a Nobel Prize already!!!!!! ^.^

[@jthompson120db]

I think they've given one to Obama, Ellen, and some guy for placing cameras in toilets ... so why not, give the guy a Nobel Prize) I think its more suiting than the latter.

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@jthompson120dbObamas was deserved. Ellen? Someone educates through social media.

[@roselightinstorms727]

You both are great🎉

[@joelvirolainen590]

10:45 What if GR is correct all the way, except we need to take the time stopping seriously? We would get the correct answer by making a simulation with time and spatial steps. We would prevent the singularity because it would take eternity to form.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Nope, singularities are formed in a finite amount of time inside black holes. Proper time is Δτ=πM at maximum from the horizon until the end ( check this out!). Proper time comes to a halt when the time coordinate r=0 inside. As you said, perhaps this is really the end of Spacetime in the interior, who knows, but if it happens, it does so at a finite amount of time.

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

24:47 Maybe GR was QG? The gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2 Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies*. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=q to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=q; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2q, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πq, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2). GR/QG predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=q; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.** --------------------- *) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n=M/2∆m: system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). **) - The experimenter needs only two parameters; the mass (gram) of the body under study m(0) and the distance from its center (centimeter) r: so the energy of the quanta of the field ε(eV) ~1.83(m/r); the radiation flux J*[erg/cm^2•sec]~7.57•10^-27(m^3/r^5).

[@david-joeklotz9558]

There is no point putting this up. The vast majority of people are not interested and for those that are and have knowledge enough will know this is not an efficient way so not bothering

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

@@david-joeklotz9558 Perhaps my publications will be of interest to scientific organizations that have the technical means and, since gravity is an urgent area for research, are ready to conduct experiments based on non-standard ideas "for luck". And the proposed experiment is simple and not expensive, {For example: a lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т. The energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV. The flow: J*=4,5•10^-9 quanta/сm^2sec; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors.}

[@IanValentine147]

Does this mean its all turned into energy? As the whiteness of the white hole? Whats the TLDR?

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

@@IanValentine147 Apparently, there is a phenomenon of gravity/inertial induction. The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i) = h/4πm(pl) [magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional]. Addition "Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, "On the curvature of space", 1922. [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dt; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] Thus the following expression: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl).

[@enlongchiou]

Black hole at Planck scale l=g*m/c^2 =(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5 oscillate with white hole at proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2 generate strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/(4pi*l/3))^2=1.13*10^28 which can transfer into EM force between proton[pm], electron[me] in Atom[A] k*e^2=g(p)*pm^2/137.036=ch/(2pi*137.036)[e+]=me*(c/137.036)^2*A =4pi*g(p)*pm*me*137.036/128.51991 which can reproduce Dirac's quantum field turn into quantum gravity at Atom scale A^2=g(p)*pi*me/128.4980143*c^2 by ch=(2*A1*137.036*pm*c^2)*(4pi*A*137.036)=En*L produce photon r=En=ch/L=chR=me*(c/137.036)^2/2=13.6*e, deduce 0.001161409725=1/(2pi*137.036) : anomalous electron magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor from positron e+=ch/(2pi*137.036)=k*e^2, 2pi*0.001161409725*(me/pm)^2=(me/pm)^2/137.036=128.4980143*A/3.1415926=2.16*10^-9=0.00116592026-0.00116591810=(0.001165920+((61-41)+(57-25))*10^-9/2) - (0.00116584719+6845*10^-7+154*10^-8+92*10^-9) : discrepancy of muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor between experiment data, theoretical prediction from Fermilab at 8/10/23 from pm/me=1836.1527=4pi*137.036^2/128.51991=1/(4*A1*137.036^3)=(pi/(128.4980143*A*137.036))^0.5 : weak force unite strong force g(p) with EM force k*e^2, deduce 80.42929 Gev[80.4335+,-0.0094] : W boson from theoretical prediction, 85.73% ratio between muon[105 mev=(3*137.036/2)*0.511], electron[0.511mev=me*c^2=g*m^2*137.036 /A] decay from strong force by 14.27=A/(3*137.036*(A-A1))=128.51991/(3*137.036*(128.51991-128.49801421207))=128.49801421207/3^2=(80.351+0.135)/(137.036*(80.486-(80.42939+0.015448))) where A1=A*(128.4980143/128.51991)=5.2908712*10^-11 meter oscillation of string at Atom scale cause Einstein's Brownian motion we can see it as a consequence from white hole pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2 produce proton pm=1.672621868*10^-27 kg, and positive charge for proton e=1.602176634*10^-19=16*g*pm*c^2, c=299792458, g=6.661181*10^-11 : gravitational constant due to red shift effect from g=6.674103388*10^-11 at Planck scale l=g*m/c^2=1.616231*10^-35 meter, m=(ch/2pi*g)^0.5=2.176646*10^-8 kg, deduce (6.674103388/6.661181)^2*0.001161409725=0.00116592026 : anomalous muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor for QCD of Yang-Mills gauge field, m/pm=1.3*10^19 is it's mass gap, pm/me =1836.1527 is mass gap for QED of Yang-Mills gauge field, deduce me^2/pm^2/g*m^2/k*e^2=(me/pm)^2/137.036=2.16*10^-9.

[@RadoslavFicko]

It can be said that the basic physical unit of time is Planck time (the shortest possible time interval) and its other derived units (i.e. multiples)

[@1112viggo]

Lmao i just realized i have never once seen Carlo in anything but those same sandals. Its a good sign, every great scientist have some weird thing like that i have found. Like Einstein with his 7 identical suits.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Recently a Philipino explained dark matter/dark energy and SUSY particles in a coherent way, although he didn't claim a complete theory. Rovelli should see his delivery, very impressive.

[@user-gj1we9co2l]

Professor Greene, I was just reading your book, Until The End of Time and I have to ask you. How did you know I had a chocolate pie in the refrigerator? 😮

[@JB-fz1rv]

Dear Prof Brian Greene I just thought that you with the string theory and your colleague are talking about the same thing in a different point of view. So seems to me. But I am no academic person. I commented some of your video already☺️ Thank you for sharing those amazing things in science. ❤ Best Cleaning Lady Berlin 03/2024

[@user-gt7xs1fc6g]

As always, your KZbin postings are informative, challenging, and yes entertaining. This time, however, I kept being distracted by how much Carlo looks like a 60 year old Harry Potter.

[@tonibat59]

Nice example of the so-called 'complexity escapade': If you have no clue about something, go forward: complicate it by a lot, expand on the complication, make more wild assumptions and you're done !

[@Killer_Kovacs]

If you have a record player, the disk will rotate around it's center. If you measure the motion on the top and then the bottom of the spinning disk, one would be positive and one would be negative. but they're actually the same. You're not really measuring the disk as much as you measuring the observer.

[@TheRarest1]

Super,based on diameter what is left is right what is right is left at same time no matter witch diameter you start with ( top bottom ) given the odd fact that it is space and time twisted like gravitational lens, it in both places same time no matter who lookin

[@Killer_Kovacs]

@@TheRarest1 space time has the continuity in the same way the record does; in that the information doesn't change, but the observations change based on the conditions of the observer

[@TheRarest1]

Ooooh got you.. thank you

[@jacobmalof]

Are there any scenarios in which sending signals into a black hole would/should result in a corresponding change, a way to potentially find, a white hole.

[@roselightinstorms727]

It's huge

[@TehDanno1]

I theorized during the opening comments that theese "white holes" could potentially be related to Dark Energy like Carlio mentioned. Though i felt we could theorize why we've not observed them is because they're so quantum small like mentioned and essentially invisible and if they're simply recycling matter a black hole ate back into Dark Energy that we're unable to observe. I feel like at this point dark energy is basically quantum plasma and or korks.

[@nyworker]

The hardest thing for the layman to comprehend is how they can talk at different time scales and size scales of GR and QM in the same sentences. Yes it is a physiciats problem that the two don't relate. But even at normal scales, I can predict where the car will stop, but can I predict on which atoms in the road it will stop? However of the four forces gravity is the most fundamental. Just as there is a standard model for particles, physicists do not classify the forces or hypothesize that they are derived in a hierarchy from gravity first. Just seems we think of forces as action at a distance but gravity may be acting with a different geometry at small scales vs action performed by massive objects like earth. At small scales gravity may be absent like the electron for individual particles. In other words, gravity is decoherent at larger scales so it comes into existence

[@IanValentine147]

Nice, gravity stops working altogether at a quantum size, so we dont have to worry about further collapse.

[@rwitmer22]

24:21 Funny awkward moment when a loop-quantum-gravity guy and a string theory guy meet. PS: The two groups differ with each other. Brian gracefully handles it well.

[@user-fl7oc5vv6g]

Hello from Kazakhstan. Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the kind of experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope made of non-circular coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 18,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.

[@jacobmalof]

Why don’t we have augmented reality glasses that translate longer and shorter EM waves into the visible spectrum? I want to ‘visibly tune in’ to to my favorite fm radio stations, I want to ‘see’ where my Wi-Fi signal is weakest. Why do I not have this product yet?

[@newmzy0]

I'm sorry to react before I watch the whole video.. I watched the introduction and some of Carlo's initial comments... but immediately I can see a glossing over of the concept of "time reversal". Sure I guess if we look at mathematical/theoretical physics we can say that the equations work in both directions, but has anyone seen this in nature? Anywhere? Am I missing something? I would love to be wrong. I will watch the rest of the video and see if they have an example of time reversal observed in the universe.

[@IanValentine147]

My thoughts exactly

[@makoffee79]

This is an interesting topic, and makes me wonder if our understanding of physics would allow for the existence of a brown-hole. And if so, would Uranus be considered a candidate?

[@MrLihas121]

Robert: So, here's what I told you.. you are a good scientist!

[@joependleton6293]

All shuck...(😊)...up. Fine space quandary ! Avoid big holes*

[@TheLeoLearner]

Great

[@domenicozaza192]

This is just beautiful

[@Simon-xi8tb]

Forget the white holes, the biggest mistery is why did Carlo chose not to wear white socks with sandals this time😂

[@user-ck6bf3ke1w]

maybe the singularity's caused when the black hole stretches the matter out so far out the other side that it starts to break apart, similar to falling water.

[@user-rp1lq9ws5l]

And furthermore, all matter should be considered a white hole when I explained in the article above about how it radiates out the rest of the energy, these are the Whitehorse monopoles And antimatter should really just be thought of as a matter that existed before it fell into the above black hole, and now is popping out I have the white holes Thank of stars, that’s an excellent example, but when you break it down all matter that radiates anything should really be considered a white hole, but at the same time is a black hole Allowing for smaller quantity of energy to pass through almost as if everything existed in a black hole

[@SMASH_REVIEWS]

Why is this not Restricted Content ?

[@valdesarquitecto6966]

Si según la teoría de cuerdas las partículas son cuerdas , cerradas o abiertas , alguien a estudiado las frecuencias como en LIGO , que al final estudiaron las frecuencias y detectaron las ONDAS gravitacionales Para modificar el comportamiento ?

[@marvinmauldin4361]

I love the idea that the singularity of an evaporating black hole becomes a gravitational well the size of a quantum particle, then jumps to being a white hole inverse gravitational well like an electron jumping from one orbit to another, or like a tunneling quantum particle. I was disappointed that no mention was made of the version I usually hear that when an evaporating black hole gets small enough, it explodes. In any event, unless there are tiny primordial black holes, there will probably be no white holes or black hole explosions until I have lost interest while waiting for the last proton to decay.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

The black hole becomes lengthier with time, even during evaporation, as Rovelli explained during the discussion. More accurately, it is stretched along the proper radial directions and squeezed perpendicularly, so it's not "the size of a quantum particle" exactly, only from the external point of view.

[@user-mg2pf4fg2r]

Why would the region of space the "White Hole" contained be under a time-reversal constraint?

[@DarwinsStepChildren]

Rovelli stated that scientists know how a black hole forms, i.e. the condensing of a massive body, however, scientists weren't certain how a white hole could form. As stated many times, no evidence of a white hole has been attained, but, Rovelli's proposal is that the formation of a white hole occurs in the time reversal of a black hole. Which is why it "needs" to be contained under a time reversal constraint.

[@user-ti4st9in8x]

沒有繁體中文翻譯，謝謝

[@Killer_Kovacs]

Is the depth of the black hole cone proportionate to the black hole mass?

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

If you're talking about the diagram presented in the talk ( that shows a 2+1 dimensional representation of the interior "tube" of an actual 3+1 Black Hole ) the calculation ( according to General Relativity) shows that for given constant mass it is proportional to the age of the black hole, from the gravitational collapse and afterwards. The interior maximal volume for a non rotating Schwarschild black hole is growing like: ΔV = 3√3 π(M^2) Δv, where Δv represents the aging of the black hole in a particular coordinate system.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 strange

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

Sorry for the previous sloppy answer, I corrected it and elaborated it.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I'm going to need to think about this

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

@@Killer_Kovacs If you're interested, a brief relevant paper is : "Black Holes: their large interiors".{arXiv: 1502.01907 ( gr-qc) from Bengtsson, Jakobsson }

[@pewrumalnarayanan3477]

Nice to hear white hole

[@kx4532]

Why can't you stick glass together by forcing it?

[@noonecandothis734]

What is entropy

[@jynxbmd851]

I haven't had time to watch this yet so maybe it's been answered/ruled out - but from what I've heard about what white holes would be if they exist (to my lay person's mind existing momentarily and expelling all of the matter from the black hole on the other side...), I often wondered given enough time if all black holes merge into one containing all our universes' matter, then resulting white hole would then constitute a new 'big bang' on the 'other side' so to speak. It's probably a dumb hypothesis; but the theories about how white holes would potentially behave, the fact we haven't seen any yet and the fact we don't have a solid theory on what caused the big bang makes me wonder. It would require an expanding then collapsing universe which I don't 'think' is the current leading theory, but still... I like it until I learn why it's probably obviously incorrect 😂

[@erebology]

Pants on fire!! White holes are science fiction!!

[@DrDeuteron]

So we’re black holes.

[@philharmer198]

Further how do plasma jets eject from both the north and south poles of a galaxy ? That should not be possible , nor happen . But it does .

[@cooleye7007]

Brian Green, as a professional Physicist ALWAYS ask the right/perfect leading questions that stays true to the topic he's in. He's got a very progressive analytical mind that results in more explorations and with a good amount of humor combined. He makes it more engaging to me as a learner and listener. He captivates you more by genuine curiosity type questions (as how Physicists should be) and as a result will trigger your creative mind and get educated as well. Truly unique and a great moderator.

[@JungleJargon]

A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*🏠💥🐿️

[@MrFlex5]

Brian Greene might possibly be the smartest human alive. Ever... As of the recording of this video.

[@jacobmalof]

Possible that the ‘other side’ of a black hole is a white hole? Toroidals?

[@anthonypena4447]

White holes are pretty much the big bang events in different areas of the same space a google plex distance away in our Universe or in different dimentions. A time reverse white hole is the beginning of time or the starting point of time itself which is a big bang event.

[@williamschwartz9283]

Professor Rovelli: “The singularity is all over… in the future.” Just as the center of the Universe is all over… in the PAST. The singularity is in the future only from the Particle’s perspective. From our perspective, the particle’s time stopped at the event horizon. If we had a perspective into the Black Hole, GR predicts backwards time travel. Causality is preserved because we DON”T, and NOTHING can escape a Black Hole. Maybe all Black Holes connect in THEIR future, to the one White Hole singularity in OUR past: The singularity we call the BIG BANG.

[@bipolarbear9917]

There’s only one white hole per universe. Our ‘white hole’ is the ‘Big Bang’. That makes the most sense. Black holes transitioning to ‘white holes’ via an ‘Einstein-Rosen bridge’ are portals to other universes within the multitude of universes that are the greater multiverse. The multiverse is a self-creating entity that constantly loops back on itself as the ultimate closed-loop system.

[@user-rp1lq9ws5l]

All matter should be considered a Rosenberg Einstein bridge a wormhole and all matter, but almost all should be thought of as a black hole, or a better way to put it As we perceive color, all matter will except a certain amount of energy which will determine their gravitational weight, depending on how much energy they accept before they radiate the rest

[@zweisteinya]

Breaking glass is reversible? Thanks for the signpost- welcome to crazyland.("vive la France")

[@user-iu4re4wx7j]

Can we think that white holes and black holes are the same one but looks like two because of quantum eltelgenment?

[@IamPoob]

If you think about it, stars are scaled down white holes 🌞

[@dwmaddawgs]

Where can I talk the people making decisions in this field about a revolutionary discovery. I feel that my contributions will go unused because I have no way of finishing without the funding. I can literally make gravitational control possible as I understand what Einstein didn't finish.

[@kricketflyd111]

If Newton were here today, he would be explaining the living universe that of light and time called Gods Geometry of Creation. ❤

[@Gazza75]

I've always loved black and white holes. 😏

[@edwardyork7396]

Could our universe be a bobble inside a white hole where our black holes feed back into?

[@sangeet9100]

Maybe White Hole is Dark Matter or maybe it is a Big Bang thingy itself. Black Holes disappearing/dying into another universe. If it should be the dark matter, why wouldn't it be detectable once it crosses the Black Hole singularity??, and since the Black Holes are taken into account while calculating the expansion of this universe, how can you count it twice (as Dark Matter as well) - Black Holes and the corresponding White Holes have mutually exclusive existence, as I dare to it

[@chinmayoak4398]

If they are there, have premordial black holes turned into white 'holes' ( I will prefer a better word to hole, may be a well, a white well )

[@kx4532]

White hole, thermodynamically unfavorable?

[@cestlavie4062]

Is it possible that a black hole of another universe is one half of a whole, the other half is a white hole that after crossing the singularity energy turns into matter and such being spewed out the other end as a white hole which creates a universe such as the Big Bang. The Big Bang being the singularity you just crossed. Also it is most likely that “the universe” is larger than just our observable universe, and the observable universe is almost identical in description to a black hole.

[@quantumentanglementsolved2531]

What happened to the days when physicists invent, discover or formulate theories that will positively affect life? White hole, black holes…… what exactly is gravity?

[@dassanie]

Pure theory physics has affected our lives in positive ways in huge ways! Quantum mechanics and relativity make gps possible, cell phones possible, computers possible! This IS positive physics

[@niki7338]

I’m disappointed that this discussion didn’t spend more time on Hawking radiation. Hawkings theory of the radiation that comes from the event horizon of a black hole predicts that the radiation will increase as a black hole gets smaller. A black hole will get smaller in time as the radiation removes mass from it. When the black hole gets small enough, it becomes so hot, and the radiation ejected from it become so strong that at the very end of its life, it explodes, with the energy of a matter antimatter collision. Maybe that’s the white hole. Wait long enough and every black hole becomes a white hole. Maybe this idea is flawed, I don’t know. But what is definitely flawed is this discussion that didn’t even mention what Hawking said is going to happen: black holes will end up in a final burst of radiation. If you’re going to mention Hawking radiation, why not at least mention the logical conclusion of Hawking radiation, which is something like a white hole. And isn’t it possible that these are the only white holes we will ever see?

[@hopperpeace]

too short

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

"Mathematics can be used to describe reality, but it can also be used to describe fantasy." Sabine Hossenfelder

[@J.DaviesArt]

And vice versa lol ... 🎨

[@samwillard5688]

Why not assume that the matter that is captured by a black hole becomes ONE thing. As a star compresses matter, how much more a black hole?

[@johnathan6489]

Gene Wolfe white fountain.

[@LuisAldamiz]

All nice and "quantum gravity", what about "relativistic mechanics"?

[@roselightinstorms727]

There's always a black hole and white hole

[@redneckrevolt1]

If Singularities truly DO NOT exist, then how can a “worm hole” exist? Don’t we have to throw that term out now?

[@V1brationCanine]

wormholes were always sci-fi at the least and hopeful wishing at the most

[@IanValentine147]

I think this is a lovely idea, but isn't it postulated on time going backwards in a White Hole? And anyway, seems white holes follow the evaporation of black holes which may take a LONG time, so has there been enough time in the Universe for enough Black holes to evaporate, to cause enough white holes, for them to be a candidate as massive as Dark Matter? Seems that is a really simple way to test the possibility that Dark Matter is White Hole dust!

[@philharmer198]

Time in and of its self , is not a real dimension . Not to the Universe . It does not cause , effect nor affect anything in the Universe . Time can not move a three dimensional physical object into movement .

[@user-ti4st9in8x]

如果以前台灣的教育不是用打的，是這麽有趣的教學，我應該不會排斥上學（翻白眼）