FOUND in the MASS GAP: The heaviest neutron star OR the lightest black hole?

[@DrBecky]

Go to ground.news/drbecky to read up on research and the way news interprets it for us. Sign up through my link to get 30% off unlimited access this month.

[@jbartl87]

FYI they list 35% off on their web page.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Nen 10 Ultimate Alien .they flew out side the universe and the stars around were other universes bubble universes

[@osmosisjones4912]

Wonder if giant stars are actually multiple stars that colided. And would that fused star have multiple stars

[@ryanchicago6028]

Dr. Becky, It's great to see you endorsing new proposals for The People's Gravity, a.k.a. The Theory of Gravity, Modified Gravity, or the theory-not- having-to-do-with-a-single-person gravity (a.k.a. MOND), and actively preparing a new thesis, in support and defense of, Rationality in Rational Fields (of Science). The Inverse Square Regime is in dire need of a change, to observe the little things, usually muddled together by bulk principles. While we overlook your serious lack of anti-war propaganda, we'll consider your acts-and-deeds on The People's side of rational discussion, anti-corruption, pro-anti-dark-matter, pro-socialist-feudal Britain, and encouraging the questioning of the aristocratic Mathematical black humor of the Newtonian age of occult magnetic principles. While the Scientific Renaissance burgeoned with the handsome(!) dialectics of Newton, and ANY of his male counterparts, the only other thing he was interested in, besides Kepler, Galileo, Leibnitz, Voltaire, and some other fellow, is his dabbling in Alchemy! Magnetism was assumed to be a proper way to look at the magnetic orbits of the planets. (see satirical 18th century zodiac columns) The People's Gravity (gravity-theory) Theoriticians would like to interject a few suggestions about where to head with our future research. Suggestion the first: A general revamping of any functional theory (i.e. a force-law theory) with an equivalent theory based on particle counting. This should give a very rudamentary form of the equations based on flux-density, and cross-section. Suggestion the second: Consider non-linear effects of particle counting to help account for the utter failure of force-law. The simplest of such examples is how a linear force would absorb / emit as 1-to-1, while a non-linear force would absorb / emit as 1-to-many. Finally, supposing the law of the free market, (pardoning my anti-war activist friends), don't ever suppose things don't exist if there's a way to profit, from, those, things. Black holes exist because LIGO created them, with the help, and passive collusion of, those rascal predecessors: Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. Newton's recklessness may as well have caused the creation of the nuclear bomb, when every other person fails to ACT - in order to stop a varitable genocide! We Need Your Help! The People Win Out! The Trump Era Must Fail! Warm Regards, The People

[@osmosisjones4912]

I think kepler 22b is the lightest Black body' every found

[@YULspotter2]

Love the "Mind the Gap" London Tube reference at the start of the video. Brought back nice memories when I visited London and rode the tube back in January 2016. Facinating video once again Dr. Becky. I always look forward to your next video release.

[@davydatwood3158]

The pop up showing Dr. Becky cares about the difference between an acronym and an initialism was the second most exciting thing I've read this week, and made me very happy.

[@SharpAssKnittingNeedles]

Had to rewatch to see the popup you mentioned, but totally agreed! We're a nation obsessed with acronyms to the point that we name everything with the end goal of a nice acronym in mind 😂 US here 🇺🇸

[@dennisduffin6549]

As an ex- astrophysicist, I love your videos, I feel like I'm getting a little taste of my old astro Journal Club (where we all sat around and talked about papers at lunch).

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

What's different now is we have to work the pause button a lot to read the abstracts, while journal clubs don't have pause buttons and don't need them.

[@hyperduality2838]

Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.

[@ahmetmutlu348]

singularity indirectly means offline/out of unverse...which black holes doen fit that definition... but may be valid until they reaches singularity... ie the part f matter outside blackhole thats under process of bein part f singularity may b te thi thats what we see on blak holes.. but after matter reaches singularity i think mathemathicall as they are offline... they are no part of black hole anymore... we can thing black holes as a atr to singularity of teory is true... i mean logcally offline means offline.. they do not obey rules.. tht meas they cant be part f symphony of te big chaos called universe anymore :D

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

That sounds fun.

[@nilo70]

That sounds like a lovely way to spend an afternoon. I think I would want Tea and a biscuit.

[@rayhaverfield2485]

Absolutely loved the issue with showing us 10 to -13 at the blooper end of the video. As an Engineer who occasionally has been known to get the decimal place in the wrong slot.. I grew up in era of slide rules afterall... it was just fun to see Dr Becky figuring it out... Thanks for the laugh. I think all the more of you for showing us that.

[@tissuepaper9962]

floating point arithmetic, slide rule, abacus; same same only different.

[@boiledegggaming8424]

as an A level physics student, ive given up trying to count the noughts and i just know which prefix is which now 😅

[@jpdemer5]

Always a treat when Dr. Becky gets nought-y.

[@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT]

I think you have fingered the pulsar of the issue.

[@KieranLeCam]

That's Gr0ss dude

[@MWaever]

Hot off the press: Uranus is a black hole.

[@alveolate]

just so real when even a seasoned professor of astrophysics has to take a moment to confirm how many zeros after the decimal and whether it includes the zero in the ones place xD

[@waverod9275]

One of the tricky things with discussing neutron stars and black holes is that there are two different masses that get brought up: the mass of the progenitor star and the mass of the remnant itself. Due to the supernova, the remnant's mass will be less than that of the star. So a remnant of 5 solar masses may be a black hole, but a star with 5 solar masses will become a neutron star.

[@hyperduality2838]

Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.

[@a.karley4672]

I was thinking this moment (on second listen-through of Her Beckyness), about the levels of mass loss in high-mass stars. Very much your point too. Not really Her Beckyness's territory, but very much related. Which sounds better : "Her Beckyness", or "Quine Smethy"?

[@davidfoster5906]

I became confused when she went from a star fussing hydrogen to helium directly to neutron star. I thought with higher mass stars the fusion works up the periodic table eventually reaching Iron before core collapse.

[@Kanner111]

That is an incredibly tight, frustrating difference between the required accuracy and the variation. Unusual for astronomy numbers to be the same order of magnitude like that!

[@Paplefication]

15:53 We've found the astronomy version of "you're gonna need a bigger boat!" 😂

[@justincronkright5025]

Just listen to Sabine Hossenfelder & you'll get to hear the exact opposite, time & time again. Except it makes sense for larger astronomical event detection devices, as space is large. But it's a massive expenditure to study the very small - Super CERNS.

[@Sonny_McMacsson]

@@justincronkright5025 False equivalence. It's not a particle accelerator. We know that the resolution and sensitivity increase with size that there are things to be seen there. It's far less speculative.

[@justincronkright5025]

@@Sonny_McMacsson Well duh, something isn't something completely different. The point is that there is a universe of stuff out there that can be explored and information garnered about the universe. Whereas the capacity to do testing of particle physics on this specific planet of Earth is either 1) finite or at least 2) made more expensive & perhaps even more fallible by the conditions they are done in.

[@Mr.Anders0n_]

​@@justincronkright5025Sabin may be right when it comes to particle accelerators, but it's a different story when it comes to astronomy, and even space in general, because we definitely get a return on our investment because all space missions have very specific goals and they usually not only achieve them, but exceed them. Also, there's no other way to get data we need other than those missions. JWST is a great example. It cost a lot of money, but I don't think any scientist would claim it was a waste of money. Mars rovers are another example because they're the only way we can explore and eventually visit other planets. Space missions don't shoot in the dark hoping to find something interesting, unlike particle accelerators

[@josephmurphy7522]

Is it possible that there is an overlap where you have the most massive neutron star being more massive than the least massive black hole?

[@rastarn]

Almost in passing, you gave the most accessibly communicated explanation for star death and neutron star formation, ever. Most people will be able to understand it, even if they don't know why. Truly demonstrating what an excellent science communicator you are. Bravo!

[@shanent5793]

It was absolutely terrible and communicated only misinformation. There's no "glowing helium core" after a supernova, instead helium is blown away by the explosion

[@ronniesan9805]

Thank you Dr. Becky for all of your insights and information!

[@Rattiar]

The comparison chart at 5:30 is just....*chef's kiss* I love the video, but that just tells you everything you need to know about both remnant stars, but also our inimitable physics explainer.

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@feekygucker2678]

"Conflated" What a fabulous word. We don't hear that one enough. Thanks Dr S.

[@a.karley4672]

It's one I use ... monthly if not weekly. But never weakly. It is an important half-way house between "you're wrong" and "you're not right", both of which include "we're both honest, but disagree". In other words, politically unacceptable.

[@ground_news]

It was great working with you as always Dr. Becky! Another fantastic analysis. To those of you interested staying fully informed and getting the latest updates for Space/Science research, check out the link in the description and let us know if you have any questions.

[@a.karley4672]

Her Beckyness is a very powerful advert for your service. I'm not in a paying position at this time, but she has moved you into the "I would if I could" category. Do you need sci-tech analysts - specifically geologists?

[@johnladuke6475]

A fascinating find, and I think it's exciting no matter which one it turns out to be, as long as it narrows the gap. Though a tiny black hole at that size would be a much bigger bite out of the difference. The transition to the ad has a fatal flaw... I can tell that it's a real science story because Dr. Becky and/or Scott Manley cover it in their news segments. And then Dr. B goes and says "giant radio telescope" and makes me sad that Arecibo is gone.

[@mazzky1093]

“We’re gonna need a bigger radio telescope.” Martin Brody

[@chriscrow8774]

This is awesome! so glad someone finally mentioned the low mass gap of BH’s lol. this is currently my research and honestly, it gets overshadowed by the other mass gaps

[@thickwristmcfist3399]

I really love your videos... They are so well done! I get giddy when i see you've posted your next videos! I love space and physics, so i totally nerd out when you enlighten us! Thanks again! See ya next time!

[@jakethecat3313]

Have you done an in depth review of Oppenheimer yet? Would love your thoughts on the film's take on history.....Be well!

[@davecool42]

I second this. 🎞️🍿

[@andyreznick]

Agreed.

[@thorwaldjohanson2526]

Yes please :)

[@mariodidier001]

I third this!

[@sicfxmusic]

I fourth fifth sixth this!

[@johnkotches8320]

That we can even detect objects this small at such a vast distance... Consider the radii involved are in the 10-20ish KM range against a distance of 40K Light years (more than 10^16 KM). So that "little bit of extra resolution" is going to be a challenge. Wonderful presentation.

[@spaceyote7174]

I loved this video, but I have a clarification to note: I just wanna point out that when Becky says that a massive star goes supernova once it runs out of hydrogen to fuse, that's not quite correct. Massive stars that turn into black holes or neutron stars actually keep fusing heavier and heavier elements until they build up enough iron - the first element they can't fuse - for their core to implode, causing a supernova.

[@andrewharpin6749]

It's not they can't fuse iron, it's just that the fusion of iron absorbs energy rather than generating energy and so there is no outward pressure from the reaction balancing in the inward gravitational pressure. This is what induces a collapse which starts the supernova process.

[@Carusus1]

You do this so well, Dr Becky!

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

That animated illustration at 9:00 is fantastic! I want that on a coffee mug and a t-shirt, animated of course!

[@a.karley4672]

My biggest issue is ... we don't have a minimum mass for a BH. We have a minimum mass for forming a BH from a collapsed star (which is also a maximal mass for a NS). But that *only* covers forming X by collapse of a star-sixe object. Hypothesis : a NS (isolated, little visible radiation signature) and a cold, old Brown Dwarf impact at low "beta" (impact factor) creating a BH-density small region which collapses ... and is separated in very-short time from either source of loosely-bound mass. Result : a BH of arbitrarily low mass (and arbitrarily high angular momentum) without any obscure physics. "Blue straggler" stars in globular clusters suggest that such improbable collisions DO happen. (No, I'm not disputing the physics of stellar collapse - just arguing that they're not the *only* formation mechanism.)

[@Gio2446]

I just saw this! My research in grad school involves this lower end mass gap (there is another on the higher end of masses dealing with black holes specifically). The way I am tackling the problem is through the use of Asteroseismology and hopefully this will achieve a more precise measurement for the mass of the visible companion. I do not work with this pulsar system though. So cool and thanks for the video!

[@jerelull9629]

So much fun! I wasn't interested in the title so much as clicking on Dr Becky to waste some time before bed. Now I know a bit about it in an enjoyable way.

[@dennisduffin6549]

I remember alot of talk about "Quark Stars" that could exist in that mass gap. Did the authors mention anything about that?

[@davidtatro7457]

I wondered the same. Quark star? Strange star? Some physicists seem to think that quark and/or strange matter may even exist at the cores of some normal mass range neutron stars.

[@nirorbach8046]

As much as I understand, the object crosses the Schwartzshild radius and becomes a black hole, before its content becomes a quark star. So who knows if inside a black hole, censored by an event horizon, resides a quark star...

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@a.karley4672]

@@davidtatro7457AIUI, they're related. Whether they're "stable" ... open question. Whether they can be (remotely, i.e. by us) distinguished one from the other - between hard and very-hard. If you want funding, you need to talk about *testable* differences. There you get funded PhD projects ; elsewhere, you're searching for funding.

[@a.karley4672]

@@nirorbach8046 Yep. The "difference without a distinction". What happens inside an event horizon, stays inside the event horizon.

[@jarl5931]

This was super interesting and enjoyable. Great talk that demanded a comment - thank you for expanding my horizons.

[@stevenkarnisky411]

Very illuminating! Jeutron stars can teeter on the edge of black holedum but there is no way to achieve the opposite effect!

[@TCook-d3s]

It has to be hell looking for black holes. The smaller they are the more aggravating. I really enjoy your channel Becky thanks for posting.

[@neuralglitch]

Thank you for presenting dense material in an informative yet digestible way. Cheers!

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@alandoak5146]

I'm an electrical engineer working on developing a commercial optical atomic clock (5e-14@1sec), and it's cool to see an example in astronomy that requires really good clocks.

[@patreekotime4578]

The thing that really strikes me about all of this is the rather small mass range for neutron stars and therefore quasars. It had never occured to me before, but now thinking about it... it means that when we observe neutron stars, we are witnessing the remnants of a system rather similar, in size at least, to our own.

[@a.karley4672]

Sorry - I've never heard of a model for powering a QUASAR relying on a Neutron Star. All I know of REQUIRE a big (million*sun-mass, upwards) black hole.

[@patreekotime4578]

@@a.karley4672 sorry, i meant pulsar!

[@doublepinger]

I'm so glad you brought in spinning. I was thinking "surely it makes it different... but more or less?" Rotation would alter the forces, but from a guess of less, is that if a neutron isn't considered a solid sphere, then surely there are warped neutrons. The warping "should" be more prone to disintegration, which causes a collapsing chain reaction... which in my thought process, would mean the neutron star could be lighter than expected, and still collapse, because *somewhere* inside it, not necessarily near the gravitational center, there's a transition from bearing gravitational stresses, to being distorted just enough to "destabilize" and "collapse" catastrophically. It would be neat seeing calculations on fluid dynamics of neutron stars, if in fact they could theoretically have convection cells or other pseudo-flows, where the peak velocity is relativistic! I want to believe a collapse could happen off-center, and could even go further, forming a circle or tube of collapsing matter, so you get a "black ring" or even "black shell", where there is a strange pocket of "non-collapsed" material.

[@thomasmacdiarmid8251]

Along those lines, she noted the effects of the rapid spinning, with the highest calculated to have the equatorial surface speed at about 1/4 speed of light. Is it just centrifugal force that assists resistance to further collapse? And what about the poles They may make similar revolutions, but the surface speed near the poles should be approaching zero, and therefore the spinning would not prevent black hole collapse. Once the poles - or the solar axis? - start to collapse, what happens with the rest of the neutron star? and what happens with all the angular momentum?

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@johnaskew4718]

Space is hard, counting is harder! Love it, cant wait to see what further study of this system uncovers

[@camaradepopoff7052]

Hearing both the fact that all stars lose mass during their lifetime, and the fact that we measure the weight of objects in the universe in terms of "solar masses", it makes me suddenly think (even though I am used to dealing with this weight unit): shouldn't the "solar mass" unit come along with a reference in time? Indeed, 10 solar masses now is not the same amount in kg as 10 solar masses in 10 years. So we have a unit system which is evolving every second! While a kilogram is a kilogram is a kilogram and its template is well known and does not vary over time. Our sun loses about 4.2 billion kg per second, emitting enery as light, solar bursts, etc. This is a huge amount of matter lost every second, even if it represents a very small amount compared to the overall sun, and to other stellar objects in the universe that may be 10 times more massive (betelgeuse 16.5 times). Still, to be perfectly accurate, shouldn't the unit be "anchored" to a reference in the timeline of the universe? When we say something weighs 6.32 solar masses, during how many years will this statement remain true until we must correct it to 6.33? I know the math could be done easily, but it's just to point out the problem. Althoug is not that trivial: the measured object may also change in mass in the meantime, so depending on if it is at a rate lower or higher than that of our sun, adjusting the statement to make it true again may be done by increasing or decreasing the number. It is strange to have such moving references, and nodoby seems to care for the inaccuracy even if very very small. Perhaps it is assumed that the mankind period in the universe will be so short that it can be seen as a single fixed point in the universe timeline, so that when we speak in terms of solar masses, the error due to time passing is sufficiently neglectable.

[@zombiedad]

Bloody excellent work. Thanks Dr Becky.

[@TG-Maverick22]

I just bought your new book Dr Becky! Can't wait to read it. Love your youtube videos. Respects from USA

[@MarkRLeach]

Question: a Type 1A supernova occurs when matter accretes to a white dwarf until it goes bang. I imagine, there are many examples where matter accretes to a neutron star. When the neutron star gains enough mass (as discussed in your excellent video) and it transitions to a black hole, does it just "switch off" and go dark????

[@garethdean6382]

Not quite but essentially yes. Lacking a source of fusion energy the collapse would be quite 'quiet' and hard to detect.The same is true for stars collapsing directly into black holes.

[@johncook802]

As Douglas Adams explained, it is a gnab gib. Not very exciting. Boring really.

[@andersjjensen]

I would assume that a neutron star has trouble "feeding" just like a black hole has, because the gravitational pull gets so violent close to it that stuff gets accelerated to close the speed of light, which causes an enormous amount of friction, to the point that the accretion disc even gives off x-ray light, which causes outward pressure against the gravity. So if the neutron star suddenly collapses into a black hole, the accretion disc would probably light up pretty spectacularly.

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@chriscrow8774]

rather than looking for the bang of the transition, we can look for the after-effects of it. For example, we can look for a luminous companion of the black hole created due to the accretion-induced collapse; a few papers have already done this.

[@TK199999]

It should be stated that when Dr. Becky says the biggest a neutron star and smallest black hole can only be 2+ times the mass of the sun. She means how big the dead stellar core can be before it collapses into a neutron star/black hole. Not the mass of the original star that core collapsed into the neutron star/black hole.

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@mypinkbunny]

hey becky i found your channel via a youtube short and have been binge your content. i been learning so much. so thank you. i stuck in bed alot so its been great to work my brain

[@dantyler6907]

Too little attention is paid to gravity wave interaction with neutron stars. Given NO gravitational wave assistance, the minimal mass of black holes are ~3 solar masses. Some should keep in mind that lower mass neutron stars that experience gravitational waves from whatever cause effectively "push" a large neutron star to fall into black hole status. Hope to read more about transindient neutron stars.

[@quillaja]

I love this. "We found this thing that would perfectly answer our question if we could just figure out what it actually is." =)

[@pacotaco1246]

I also call it the "Tov limit" You're not the only one!

[@brian554xx]

heavy neutron star more interesting because it can give clues about the balance between degeneracy pressure and conversion of up and down quarks to strange or other quarks.

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@nomadicagent6311]

I am appreciative of those who included a researcher's portrait on the report paper with their name. It's a good idea to become familiar with their names and faces. It ought to be present everywhere!

[@a.karley4672]

This is a great demonstration of the "better approximation to reality" model of what science is. If your new data (on whatever) provides a better approximation to our previous measurements, your model is (probably) better. It worked for Kepler (Copernicus didn't push his mathematical ideas ; Kepler made them unavoidable.). Then Faraday. And Einstein. And ... the next ...

[@laurencechesley7363]

I LOVE your channel Dr. Becky.

[@efulmer8675]

8:45 Synthesizing some Astronomy magazine articles and some other material I've read about neutron stars, the freakiest thing to see happen would be a neutron star extremely close to the TOV limit and spinning extremely rapidly suddenly undergo a starquake but that starquake disturbs the packing and spin of the neutron star just enough that part of it collapses into a black hole and in a tiny, tiny fraction of a second a neutron star you may have been actively monitoring suddenly has a freakout and then just vanishes in a titanic explosion and then... blackness.

[@larrywest42]

In my ignorance, I was thinking that being in globular cluster would mean there would be "frequent" perturbations of the orbit as other stars pass "close by" (say 1,000 AU)... But IIUC, the stars in a cluster will be moving between 5 & 30 AU per year, so not exactly swooping by, and moving well under 0.1% of mean separation (1ly ≈ 63k AUh) per year. And with J0514-4002E being only 8M km (0.05 AU) from its partner, I expect the effect of stars even 100 AU away would be insignificant.

[@jorelc6]

the thumbnail for this video is AMAZING

[@jamesgreenler8225]

What's happening around a black hole that we can't explain is likely also the key to making something invisible. It's interesting how stable a black hole is

[@drdca8263]

Why would the amount of spinningness be different if it is a black hole vs if it is a neutron star (assuming it is the result of a merger)? Is it because if it were a merger of two neutron stars combining to make a neutron star, that some stuff would have been ejected outwards, carrying away some angular momentum? Or, is it some other reason?

[@felinefree]

Hi @DrBecky, this may be a silly question, but I was wondering if it makes sense to ask about why the up and down quarks that makeup neutrons do not resist the force of gravity after the point at which the neutrons break down under high gravity? Or is this part of the mystery and importance of why we need a theory of quantum gravity - because Quarks follow the laws of QM and not GR? You see my thought process extrapolating from stars collapsing down into neutron stars (big ball of neutrons) and wondering about whether a black hole might be a ball of fundamental particles in a smaller volume. Another thought is about how the fundamental particles like quarks etc have no measurable size and are treated as 'point-like' in mathematics - so to a regular guy like me it conceptually doesn't seem strange for a large amount of fundamental matter under high gravity to be occupying what looks like the same place - a point in space with so much concentrated energy that gravity reduces space to 0 dimensions. I know that I have got here through a lot of misunderstanding! I know that is probably nonsense, but I am just a science and space fan trying to understand the universe. Love your book and channel! BONUS QUESTION: What can someone who hasn't done maths since secondary school start learning to get a better understanding of physics in cosmology? Any recommendations?

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem. The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic (duality). Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative gravity, negative pressure or hyperbolic space, negative curvature (inflation)! The definition of Gaussian negative curvature is defined using two dual points or singularities:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature The big bang is an infinite white hole (an explosion, expansion, divergent).

[@vrendus522]

Thanks for keeping me updated Dr. Becky. There should be some way to tell if object is a neutron star. Something tells me it's not a BH. Daniel B USA

[@richardhoover4471]

Exciting! More research needed! Continued research needed. 🎵Repeat from the top!🎵

[@johnjakson444]

It would be interesting if there was some overlap, a neutron star slightly bigger than a blackhole, requiring a kick by an external event to start the collapse

[@davepeller8185]

Love that graph with "Mind the Gap" in the middle!

[@lindsayforbes7370]

Loved the book and fascinated by black holes. Can you explain why when a neutron star gets big enough to collapse into a black hole it has to firm a singularity? Isn't it possible that there is another phase of mass with a degeneracy pressure to stop the collapse to the singularity.

[@chrisyes1629]

I really love these videos DB. We're getting closer and closer to understanding Black hole creation. The latest reseach is cool. But I still don't buy into the conventional theory of Black hole Physics. I believe that Black holes are a tare in the fabric of space and not super dense objects. Laugh and then read on! To picture it in a simplified model it's like this. Imagine space as a piece of cloth streched out. On this cloth representing stars are marbles varying in size and mass. When a marble becomes dense enough and spins fast enough ( Neutron Star ) it tears through the fabric. Space can no longer support it and it is anylated. The remaining cap is a Black hole. The law of conservation makes space keep a memory of this event. A Black hole. It is space itself ( the fabric ) which creates the intense gravity around it. I believe that a phenomenon like a vortex, in the fabric of space is set in motion around a Black hole which gives the appearance the the Black hole is spinning. Of course you have your doubts. Well according to mainstream Physics nothing can enter a Black hole and escape. Gone forever. It may seem strange but I don't believe this is the case all the time. If a star enters a Black hole at the right angel and velocity it may drag some of the fabric of space in with it. This fabric would protect the star. The star would disappear and emit no light. Then sometime later re emerg glowing again but somewhat beaten up and much smaller. Essentially the space dragged into the black hole sustained the energy of the star until it escaped. No? Well it just so happens that this has been observed in 2018. Physicists looking for TDE's witnessed this in their data and observations. The curious case of AT2018HYZ cannot be explained. My theory does this. Someone? Anyone? Cheers from downunder.

[@williamquattlebaum7535]

Thank you very much for explaining and thank you to all the scientist who are unraveling the mysteries of the universe and physics. It is of utmost importance.

[@benjaminqilafku5714]

Becky you such a fun to explore the hard stuff...... 😊😊

[@kriiistofel]

This 'Black hole orrery visualization' is very satisfying to watch. I could watch the 10-hour version 😄

[@rebeccarivers4797]

Could the remnant of Betelgeuse be close to the TOV limit on either side? Either as a large neutron start or small black hole?

[@jerrydumas9848]

Iim so glad i have had the opportunity to live in the era that had brought astrophysics to the forefront of science!!

[@Rubrickety]

Imagine how different physics discourse would be if ice skating had never been invented.

[@Bildgesmythe]

They'd have to use a kid twisting a swing which requires a much longer explanation 😂

[@stuartmaclean8668]

The keyword here is Blitzar if it were a neutron star. The neutron star would have to have a relativistic speed of rotation and if its speed of rotation were to drop then the centrifugal force holding its wait up would stop the Blitzar from collapsing into a black hole. Now as there is no EM radiation as such Blitzar magnetar star would be then it's a light weight black hole. Hence sounds like the lightest black hole may have been found.

[@keithseymour4305]

thanks for that interesting piece but I have a question: the neutron star is of lower mass than the companion object (?BH) ? First have I understood that right? if so why is the heavier object in orbit round the lighter one should that not be reversed/

[@Dragrath1]

I would like to point out that the assumption that the collapse of a core can truly happen in the context of the solutions to the Einstein field equations depends on some simplifying assumptions based on symmetry. The no big crunch theorem is a metamathematical result which calls into question one of those simplifying assumptions by showing that for the information contained within the initial conditions to be preserved within any frame of reference there must be an irreducible nonzero asymmetry (or rather antisymmetric) component to the off diagonal elements of the metric tensor. This has the unfortunate consequence of always being analytically unsolvable for any nontrivial solutions but is the natural consequence for any initially expanding and sufficiently large inhomogeneous and anisotropic metric. Basically from numerical simulations the asymmetry in terms of over densities always making more underdensities under gravity in an expanding universe means that no valid metric can exist which enables the direction of expansion and or contraction to change signs. In essence the rate of change of volume within any given element of spacetime becomes dependent on the local time i.e. no unique proper time can be defined which preserves mathematical continuity. Granted the contribution of these asymmetries can be and probably are extremely small but they must be nonzero else logical self contradictions and the irreversible loss of information on the initial conditions and thus the violation of the rules of calculus. This is significant as this antisymmetric nature of the metric's off diagonal elements suggests that if the metric is to quantized it must be quantized in the form of a Dirac spinor or Fermion and thus gravity would have to be mediated by a fermion rather than a boson in order for a solution to be a valid solution to the unconstrained full Einstein field equations. In essence the solutions in order to have a valid solution for each and every possible initial condition requires that the metric evolves such that the metric for all possible points in spacetime from any and every possible frame of reference is always uniquely defined. If you wish to use the rules and properties of calculus there is no escaping this conclusion. This I should note also gives us a form of Bell's inequality which emerges mathematically as a consequence of expansion's symmetry breaking nature. In more familiar likes of matter this leads to electron and neutron degeneracy pressures so it seems probable that something similar must happen under ultracompact conditions though this time in regards to the metric itself which would oppose collapse enough that the escape velocity would only asymptotically approach the speed of light. The problem here is that these results would still result in a strong gravitational redshift making these objects look dark as their light would be stretched out to longer and longer wavelengths making them look like black holes especially if the mass is high. So the range where you might be able to definitely test this is that intermediate range within the mass gap. Though I can't help but wonder if Fast Radio Bursts could come from such dark stars as a former gamma ray burst explosion like seen from certain magnetars redshifted by the strong gravity. Note you can check and see that under the limits of the no big crunch theorem you can still recover the traditional general symmetric Einstein field equations for cosmologically local distances making this domain effectively a limiting case much the way classical mechanics is a special limiting case of general relativity. The main thing different here is that you can't neglect the off diagonal components since there is now a nonzero minimum contribution for anything which has ever interacted in the past lightcone for an expanding universe. Incidentally this contribution trivially reproduces the observations we attribute to dark energy" under the standard symmetric simplifications without needing any additional components which means that by eliminating a constraint and accepting that the Einstein field equations are only numerically solvable in exact form we trivially eliminate the need for additional fitting terms. Occam's razor we must go back to Einstein and use the full irreducibly nonlinear solutions which are only ever exactly solvable by numerical methods. If we find light coming from an object typically assumed to be a black hole then that is more or less proof that the traditional assumptions are logically forbidden like mathematicians have been saying to the deaf ears of physicists fixated on approximating the FLRW metric for around a century.

[@drachenfeIs]

"no big crunch theorem" take ur meds, the universe is expanding not shrinking

[@Dragrath1]

@@drachenfeIs Please learn to read. If you are going to be rude at least try and not look like an idiot by showing you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. The theorem with its name and all comes from the paper Inhomogeneous and Anisotropic cosmology Cited as Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022 DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/022. The name comes from the fact that they prove explicitly in mathematical terms that solutions to the full Einstein field equations in the limit where the size of the universe is much larger than the rate at which information can propagate i.e. size approaches infinity that the overall direction of the change in volume within that manifold is fixed in direction for not change. *The explicit consequence of this is that in order to be a valid solution to the actual Einstein field equations any and all valid initial conditions within an initially expanding universe must at large scales always expand forever with an irreversible unidirectional arrow of time.* This in case you can't figure it out means that you don't need any so called dark energy to give an accelerating expansion of the universe any and every valid solution will always give you the property attributed to dark energy provided that the universe in question isn't perfectly homogeneous and isotropic at all scales which happens to also be the prerequisite for structure formation to occur. The models cosmologists use try and assume that you can approximate a nearly symmetric universe with tiny inhomogeneities using perturbation theory but perturbation theory depends on the equilibrium point of the solution you are approximating deviations from being a stable equilibrium point. The no big crunch theorem however proves that this is not the case for any and all valid metrics to the Einstein field equations. In the end all such models which try and make such an assumption violate the principals of calculus and thus are mathematically invalid.

[@DuckDodgers69]

Thanks Dr Becky

[@larrywest42]

6:27 ❤ for mentioning the difference between acronyms and initialisms. (E.g., NASA _vs_ FBI, or QUANGO _vs_ NHS)

[@bumboclat]

The mass gap is really intriguing. I wonder if we make a fundamental mistake when calculating the mass of either neutron stars or black holes, allowing for the gap to exist. Since neutron stars do collapse into black holes by accumulating mass, there should not exist a gap.

[@Jaabaa_Prime]

Awesome, Dr. Becky's favourite subject, awesome information, as always 😀 So "Q": is there no light due to it being a black hole with to no accretion disc, or can a neutron star cause a gravitational fluctuation with causing an accretion disc? Isn't this getting into boundary levels between the two?

[@hyperduality2838]

Angular momentum (symmetry) is always conserved -- the spinning ballet dancer. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Neutron stars (thesis) are dual to black holes (anti-thesis) create the Mass Gap (synthesis) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Singularities are actually dual:- Positive curvature singularities (Black holes) are dual to negative curvature singularities (white holes, the big bang) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual (isomorphic) to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers, curvature. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality is a symmetry and it is being conserved according to Noether's theorem.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

Seeing a super nova explosion is noticeable. Seeing something disappear is much harder. There has only been a few occasions where we notice that something is no longer visable.

[@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv]

A legend way to present a new twist of switching mass. Very unique to tell the gap in flat platform in railway announcement. Why gravity became wild to freeze a star in a blackholes is not mear a matter of fate. This universe can show other switching too for cosmic fate reader . Burning cosmic dust as fuel to rotate around won axis .... Namaste 🙏 a fantastic lecture for Digital viewers and lovers

[@andyharris3084]

I would presume that angular momentum would be a factor. The faster the spin the more mass there can be up to a point. That point could be near the speed of light.

[@gregallen485]

It would be super cool to have a neutron star right at the limit of becoming a black hole because of its spin, eventually slow down just enough to no longer be able to prevent its collapse and the pulsar blinks out. And would it just go out (stop pulsing) or would there be some kind of explosive event?

[@_thisnameistaken]

That, my friend, is called a blitzar.

[@Andrew-qw1kq]

I think the most exciting possibility is that there could be a transition stage that's neither a black hole or a neutron star. Something like a quark matter object or a boson star.

[@sylak2112]

I guess the team thought about this, But i'm curious, but could it be a very dim white dwarf too? the more massive WD know is like 1.3 Msun. Althought their normal range is more lik 0.8. WD are ussually bigger in size than a neutron start, but their light is dim, VS the radio Beam coming out of a pulsar. that would be massive enough to have a effect on the pulsar. I love when the videos are right in your field of expertise, Hurray for black holes!

[@robbannstrom]

At 11:48 you state that "of course, your pulsar still has to be a neutron star," which is almost always the case, but note that the AR Scorpii binary system consists of a white dwarf pulsar (the first of its' kind) orbiting a cool low-mass star. Of course, if the pulsing component in the J0453+1559 cannot be detected in any EM wavelength, then your statement is (probably) true.

[@ginsengaddict]

I think the lightest black hole would be more exciting. It would close that mass gap a lot more, giving us more certainty about the limits of neutron degeneracy pressure. I like it when we learn hard facts, and if this object is a black hole rather than a neutron star, that's harder facts.

[@allrealtrue]

Thank you Dr

[@GaryBickford]

The rotation of a neutron star being so fast, it makes me wonder if the polar regions approach the black hole state before the equatorial region. Could the polar zone act as a partial black hole, with a partial Schwarzchild surface while the rest of the star is still more of a radiating neutron star surface.

[@Pxtl]

I feel so much better knowing that Dr Becky has the same fence-post problem with scientific notation that I do.

[@noiseintheoffice]

Brilliant, and the "Nough' nough' nough' nough' nough' nough' " is so charming!

[@baomao7243]

Is … NOT ! (But i measure airspeed in knots.)

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

​@@baomao7243Do you rotate at V1?

[@MiguelFuentes420]

Why would “the angle of the orbit with respect to us” make a difference in the masses of the neutron star and its companion?. Saludos.

[@yahccs1]

Fascinating thank you. I'm surprised spin doesn't have even more of an effect. Wouldn't a neutron star be too faint to see next to a star it is in a binary system with? They are so much smaller, but then we can detect planets around stars and they only reflect light or glow in infra red or dim the star light slightly when they transit. I found somwhere that says all pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars. But perhaps some are pulsars that never point their light beams in our direction, then we wouldn't know. Or does their rotation (rotational or magnetic axis) precess enough for it to come around to point our way some of the time, then move away again? In-between objects are fascinating anyway, they might be another category? Like brown dwarfs somewhere between planets and stars, dwarf planets between planets and asteroids.

[@Fred-rj3er]

Wow Becky. I'm 64 and have always had an interest in stars etc but never really knew much You! Lovely lass, are explaining things that actually get into mi daft head. Thank you so much for that. I love ya light hearted and realistic approach. Your active, expressive hands and face make your videos captivating, and hold attention.

@13.43 the image displays the Virgo detector in Pisa (Italy), not what the caption reads (LIGO Livingstone, LA, USA). Besides this tiny detail, a great video. Thanks.

[@CosmosJack]

"Dark [matter] black holes" are predicted to have masses even lower than the TOV (and Chandraskhar!) limits! They can theoretically form in the very early Universe when dark matter self-interacts and cools; it is possible that the gravitational wave event GW190425 had a black hole with a mass in this range! I learned all of this yesterday in a talk by Dr. Sarah Shandera from Penn State :)

[@glen1arthur]

In practical terms: It doesn't really matter which is which or when the one turns int the other, when it comes to being caught in their gravity well.

[@ozzy6162]

Interesting as always Becky. I'm always left wanting to know more.... Is the minimum mass of a pulsar just taken from observations - there's no mathematics behind it? Is rotation the only variable that can allow the neutron star to be more massive than the static limit before it becomes a black hole? Would anything in its environment change this?

[@mg4361]

One question that occurred to me right now - does a black hole form directly during a supernova, or does the core first collapse into an unstable neutron star that gradually settles until its radius drops below the Schwartzschild radius? The reason why I'm asking is because I know that a big driver for the supernova is the jet of neutrinos emitted from the core but I guess those can't be coming from a black hole...

[@TlalocTemporal]

"Larger" supernovae are actually quieter and eject less mass exactly because the black hole eats more of the star before it can escape. Matter falling into a black hole still releases a lot of energy though, and I think that's what powers those large supernovae. There's also "Black Hole Stars" that are (theoretically) a gas envelope energized by matter falling into a black hole. Basically a continuous large supernova.

[@TlalocTemporal]

I should also mention that some neutron stars collapse into black holes as some of the ejected matter falls back on them, similar to your thoughts, while others collapse directly to a black hole with no supernova at all.

[@mg4361]

Thanks for the clear answer!

[@ScottLahteine]

Why does an object need to collapse before the curvature of spacetime around it can become enough to trap light? Is it theoretically possible for some kind of neuron star or post-neutron star to be dense enough to be considered a “black hole” even though it’s still a neutron star or some next stage object that we don’t yet have a name for? And does a black hole necessitate an “actual singularity” or does it merely produce a mathematical singularity? Presumably the Universe never “actually” divides by zero or produces infinitely dense or infinitely curved things; we simply don’t have models that can withstand these kinds of extremes.

[@Demonrifts]

That kind of goes hand in hand with relativity, though. Gravity is the curvature of space, and light moves at the fastest possible speed; the speed of causality. In order for gravity to be sufficiently curved to prevent light from escaping, it must curve into a single point- a singularity.

[@richardmercer2337]

I don't think "lightest black hole" is going to win any awards....but "heaviest neutron star" has a fighting chance at a consolation prize!

[@MikeJamesMedia]

Thank you for all this interesting food for thought!

[@grahampaulkendrick7845]

I love the idea of tgat neutron star having 'a companion'. It can be lonely out in deep space.

[@TheNewPhysics]

The question of how heavy it is is not answerable because that depends upon angular momentum or whether the neutron star precursor is spinning fast or not.

[@urouroniwa]

Kind of unrelated question. What was the density of the very early universe? I keep thinking of the "Big Bang" as an expansion of space going from zero-sized (infinitely dense) to something non-zero-sized and then expanding (Or maybe better put, 1 or 0 dimensioned and then expanding, bringing our other dimensions into being. What is the length of a point?). I'm sure that's naive. However do we have an idea if the very early universe was at near-infinite density? I wonder this because of the previous discussions of large sized black holes in the early universe. Do we assume the very early universe started at a density *less* than what would collapse into a black hole? And even if the universe is infinite, and evenly distributed with matter, if you stretch the coordinate system would not not expect local collapses if the density was such that it could happen? And in so doing, would that not create empty space between local collapses for other material to be blown into at lower densities? I realise the above is going into crackpot land, but I'm definitely struggling to understand why up to this point we have not expected to see black holes in the very early universe.

[@franciscoathens924]

Maybe the energy that can no longer escape within the event horizon is converted to mass? Another silly idea: all that we (outside the EH) can perceive of photons that are trapped within the EH are gravitons? It's amazing to ponder what happens to the mass in a black hole, but what of all the electromagnetic spectrum that gets trapped in there too?