J. Richard Gott - Why Black Holes Are Astonishing

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

This video combined with others on your channel - especially those with Dr. Philip Clayton - led me to ask myself if gravity might an emergent phenomenon matter exhibits on a large enough scale, a sort of macro-expression of entropy. One google search allowed me to find out that this idea had already been suggested - barely 12 years ago as of today's date - and I was left with the answer "most likely no", along with all the amazingly interesting background explanations. I am still deeply satisfied with having come up with this idea on my own and I am even more satisfied with having found an answer to it. I am culturally richer than I was 10 minutes ago. That's how precious the material on your channel is - it fed my curiosity **more so** than I was expecting.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(0:01) *RLK: **_"Black holes are one of the most remarkable things not only that exist, but that we can conceive to exist."_* Robert's opening line is the best takeaway from this entire video. Compact areas of time travel, collapsing string loops, weak singularity regions, universe spin-offs, and other wild _speculations_ are more indicative of our innate ability to "conceive" amazing things. And that's really what's found at the core of a black hole: *The lowest possible state of conceivability.* Yes, the lowest possible state of conceivability takes us all the way down to a nondimensional, mathematical point. We can't conceive anything less while remaining grounded in logic. It is no coincidence that this _lowest of the lowest_ states of conceivability also represents the emergence of the universe. On the other side of the conceivability spectrum, theism offers us *the highest possible state of conceivability* for which they call "God." Theism's God represents the _highest of the highest_ states of conceivability with nothing greater able to be conceived while remaining grounded in logic. *"Singularity"* and *"God"* ... The Reese's Cup of Existence! ... Let's give a big round of applause for "Consciousness!"

[@vtbn53]

"God" is very much NOT "grounded", least of all in logic, and it's degree of "conceivability" is proportional to your level of delusion.

[@kos-mos1127]

God is not grounded in logic. The way we talk about God today is different than the way God is talked about today. In the modern world God is this meaningless term. God was originally used to embody the transpersonal aspects of reality. Thor is not the god of lightning, Thor is lightning. Yahweh is not the god of creation, Yahweh is creation. The phrase I Am that I Am says as much. All gods embody an aspects like love, war and and nature. Now if what you mean by God is transcendent being that created the universe I will say that God is not real. Now if what you mean by God is an embodiment of transpersonal things than they are real.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@kos-mos1127 *"God is not grounded in logic."* ... Why? What logical constraints negate the existence of theism's God? Theism's God occupies the highest endpoint on a "spectrum of Conceivability" with Big Bang's singularity occupying the opposite endpoint. If you don't believe theism's God should occupy the highest point of conceivability, then what else would you assign to that endpoint? *"The way we talk about God today is different than the way God is talked about today."* ... That is not a logical sentence! lol. I know what you meant to write. We don't throw a penalty flag at theism for refining its concept of God just like we don't penalize science for refining what was once deemed steady state theory. *"The phrase I Am that I Am says as much."* ... In Biblical terms, I think that phrase was indicative of theism's God proclaiming a bold, "axiomatic existence" to a confused Moses more than qualifying what "types of properties" are involved in God's presence. Perhaps a theist will chime in an offer clarity? *"All gods embody an aspects like love, war and and nature."* ... Religion has coalesced multiple gods into a single monotheistic God just like science has coalesced the entire universe into a single point called singularity. *"Now if what you mean by God is transcendent being that created the universe I will say that God is not real. Now if what you mean by God is an embodiment of transpersonal things than they are real."* ... With God not agreeing to premier with Robert in a CTT podcast to answer that question, we'll just have to leave it up to the individual.

[@dougg1075]

Gott is one of my favorite science communicators. Maybe because he’s southern:)

[@jeffneptune2922]

Yes, he seems like a Southern gentlemen. Also, Gott takes a more measured position on speculative physics like Lisa Randall or Paul Davies so doesn't come across as being biased.

[@jonnyroxx7172]

He reminds me of some of the folks I’ve met on my travels through the Deep South. People not familiar with the accent and mode of speech may think that they’re stereotypically a “dumb Southerner” while they’re actually a total genius. A good friend of mine from Mississippi talks very slowly with a drawl, but he’ll take the piss out of anyone who thinks they can outsmart him.

[@westindienaturals]

Wow!!! I’m no scientist but I’ve been pondering this over for a little while! Exciting! 🤩

[@NikkiTrudelle]

I feel Richard could get abducted by aliens, taken to a habitable planet in the pleiades and not miss a beat. He’d just find a job and find an alien babe to marry, pretty much just become a local.

[@moonshineonme75013]

BwaHaHaHa 😂 HeHeHe

[@moonshineonme75013]

UhHuh 🤣 YeaUh

[@moonshineonme75013]

💦

[@abelincoln8885]

What is actually astonishing is how people ignore the FACT that only an intelligence makes LAWS ... and physical & abstract constructs with purpose, properties, rules, design, function, information.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Certainly alien thinking he are nerd boring . Because aliens thinks his Theory concern phich are dishored phich without honest Science minds. Richard speculations on Black holes are minds abstract left honest phichs out.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

When you punker a can of milk to pour, you punker an air hole also, would a black hole be the air hole and the Sun the gate way? Where are black holes located, are they placed in relation to anything else, how many are there? Are black holes the development of Sun's as the energy the Sun has is within or from somewhere's else from within?

[@johnyharris]

Black holes are formed by the death and collapse of massive stars under their own runaway gravity.

[@shawns0762]

According to Einstein and to Einstein's math singularities are not possible. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass "dilation" (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein repeatedly spoke about this, that's why nobody believed in black holes when he was alive. He wrote about this in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of high mass galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. High mass means high momentum. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. There is no direction you can point your finger that you are not pointing to it. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in high mass galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). There is no "mystery" mass, there is just mass that is dilated. Low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) have normal star rotation rates, this is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass for relativistic velocities to be achieved. This is proof that Einstein is correct, there can be no other explanation for this fact. Einstein formulated relativity before the existence of galaxies was known. It is clear that the mass is dilated through the galaxy and not the universe as a whole. It exists everywhere and every when the galaxy has been. It is the cosmic backround radiation. There is no black holes or dark matter, there is just relativity. All images and data from galactic centers is in line with this.

[@X-Aethos-X]

I’d like someone with more knowledge than myself to reply to this lol Not sure how you can say there are none when almost every astrophysicist in the world agree that they are in fact there.

[@mikel4879]

Ryan / And all of them who agree with the stupidity are just simple parrots and stupids.

[@johnyharris]

Einstein predicted black holes, but later had doubts. He also had doubts about quantum mechanics, in particular entanglement, which we now know is a part of reality. Black holes now have a scientific consensus since we have the Event Horizon Telescope image of a black hole and therefore indisputable proof. The image fit the predictions of the gravitational lensing of the event horizon.

[@mikel4879]

Johny Harris / No, we don't have the proofs you're parroting about without thinking with your own brain. Forget the poor idiot Einstein. What you see with the most advanced telescopes when you watch the so-called "black holes" regions is a somehow the same visual illusion that you see when you watch at high distances something in the desert under high temperatures. The ( non-existent ) "black holes" do not exist for the simple fact that the so-called "gravity" phenomenon is not the results of a universal attractive force, but the correct result of a universal and fundamental repulsive phenomenon. That's the main reason for which an aggregation like the so-called "black hole" can not exist anywhere in the Universe at any scale imaginable. / The so-called "entanglement" is not what the majority of the square heads priests called "scientists" thinks it is. Two arbitrary "material" aggregations called "particles" are erroneously seen and categorized as "disentangled" because the correct real plane in which "they" ( there's no real "they", but only real, forever uninterrupted causal constructive and destructive entropic interferences ) reside is the same continuum "material" aggregation that's incorrectly understood and seen by these incompetent "priests-scientists-parrots" as illusory entangled aggregated forms and under an incorect real geometrical perspective. Practically they don't realize in their parroted blind stupidity called "scientific belief" that it is all about the same continuum aggregated substrate, but existing under a different perspective "angle" of observation. There's no voo-doo "entanglement" absolutely at all. The universal reality is much simpler than the "priests" scientists erroneously think it is. Mental impotence ( = stupidity ) creates always monstruos (i)logical constructions.

[@shawns0762]

@@X-Aethos-X According to relativity they dont exist, relativity is not debatable. It is a misconception that general relativity predicts singularities. The fact that it perfectly explains the motion of stars in high mass galaxies is proof. You can read Einstein's take from the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" on the JSTOR website, on the last few pages he talks about high mass scenarios.

[@eternalblue4660]

If the singularity of a black hole consists of extremely condensed matter, does this not imply that limited degrees of permutations are possible for said matter? As for things to change states or degrees you'd need time to be in the equation to give the matter a domain or dimension of freedom. The matter there would be almost in a state of perma-frost until it gets dissipated in Hawking Radiation.

[@eternalblue4660]

And just a note, I am pretty sure the information is dissipated not the content itself but I could be wrong here. It's like saying you lost an item but still have the receipt to prove it's existence in some way or another.

[@johnyharris]

Weak singularities were explored in the movie Interstella. Getting into them to collect data is theoretically possible but as he states getting the data back out is impossible. In the movie the 'Bulk Beings' help get the data out. Just a shame they most probably don't exist!

[@vtbn53]

Actually it IS possible to get data back out, if not the law of information conservation would be broken, although how that happens is still very much an active field of research, but then most things about black holes are.

[@pranoypraveenofficial]

Please sit with Salvatore Pais. I hope he agrees to talk. It’s going to be very very very interesting. Please try. I hope he comes out.

[@oocloudoo1549]

Information inside the black hole is never lost it’s only redistributed.

[@wayneasiam65]

Another good video from Robert Kuhn's channel Closer to Truth. Richard's great and very bright. I can't help but wonder if the Time Travel area, and quick survival of infinite density simply isn't a math bump. If this Inside Special Area is real , perhaps our bodies Are being compressed ...and then reconstituted instantly. And if that were true, wouldn't it be like a transport beam? With entanglements galore involved. And also Realities.

[@Dialogos1989]

I read this as “Why Butt Holes are astonishing”

[@maillardsbearcat]

I always wonder, why does there have to be a theory of everything? Alot of laws are emergent, sitting on top of other laws that allow them to exist in the first place. For instance, does C++ have anything to do with the mechanics of the video game I'm playing?

[@maillardsbearcat]

That wasn't some arrogant rhetorical point, I'm genuinely asking for someone to answer me please lol.

[@JungleJargon]

Time doesn't pass by very fast in a black hole and the density would put all matter together where matter is forced together more than a neutron star. It's not like much can happen there. It's literally a wall of condensed matter where almost no time passes by.

[@johnyharris]

Not all black holes are created equal. As he explains in the video, weak singularities in a spinning black hole theoretically allow for an object to be passed through unharmed as the collapse of spacetime occurs over an infinitesimal small period of time .

[@JungleJargon]

@@johnyharris They say the smaller ones will do you more damage. However, the point is that they are all virtually a singularity Which is what I described. …a wall of condensed matter. They make stars explode.

[@ironl4nd]

@@JungleJargon it is not a wall, it is a zero-dimensional mathematical point with no size and infinite graviational curve

[@JungleJargon]

@@ironl4nd Same thing.

[@ironl4nd]

@@JungleJargon ..no., it is not. Wall implies size.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could inside black hole be reverse of big bang start of universe? Quantum fields heat back up into inflation towards a tiny grain of matter / energy?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Are there quantum fields inside event horizon of black hole? Does Hawking radiation require quantum fields inside black hole? Would two dimensional information at surface of event horizon also require quantum fields inside black hole?

[@haimbenavraham1502]

It's nice to know there are some things we don't know.

[@leonardobaldini7196]

Hello everybody. I personally think that the following statements are simultaneously true: 1) The universe "exists" because it is perceived by conscious agents existing within it; 2) The universe exists regardless of whether or not there are conscious agents existing within it who perceive it.

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

The black holes, and life after death, they are two , fundamental physics phenomenon , which are related together!

[@jazzunit8234]

Time stops at the moment black holes are born, the key to what time is has to do with the amount and type of energy, this cause and effect scenario

[@deanwilson8955]

Interesting. Could a black hole be the spark that creates another universe. Is our universe the result of a black hole (our Big Bang) and the condition repeats itself as an infinity?

[@jaykemm3472]

I believe I misunderstood the content of this title. I totally had something else in mind.

[@ChristopherRyans]

The singularity!

[@RuneRelic]

Question. Considering that we see massive bubbles emerging from the poles of galaxies, where black holes are claimed to reside. Is hawking radiation expected to release in all vectors simultaneoulsy (spherical bubble), or just at opposing poles along opposing vectors ? If the energy release is commensurate with the stripping of stars as a cosmic burp, does that not imply that it is ejecting mass/energy as it can not absorb that mass energy ? Does that imply that it absorbs along an equator but must eject its existing internal material out the poles ? Is that not a demonstration of conservation of energy at either side of the event horizon, or merely utter surface annihilation from mass to energy exiting along field lines? So, if the polar bubbles are ejection from within the event horizon to conserve energy and not surface annihilation, are they not in fact the result of wormholes exiting from within the black holes event horizon ? The problem I have is that black holes must be either absorbing (to gain mass) or absorbing/transforming/ ejecting (not necessarily gaining mass). Especially consideing that hawking radiation implies they deflate/leak. Especially when consideing pulsar wobble creating a conical path of travel and energy ejection.

[@winstonsmith8240]

I like J.

[@KenRuan]

his voice sounds like John Turturro!

[@y1.5]

4:20 look at the bottom corner of window.a time traveler watching them

[@chayanbosu3293]

Now Uncertainty principle is very much established theorem in Physics so we can also say God is also a principle to explain whole cosmos.

[@johnyharris]

Uncertainty Principle does not include God. It simply states you can't be certain of the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.

[@CeezGeez]

wat

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Gravity/Black Holes are mythical bed time story

[@buckanderson3520]

In a universe that has no edge maybe black holes are the edge or at least the edge of the observable universe. I also think that black holes are responsible for the universe's expansion.

[@firstal3799]

Backhoe yes but not the phislophical superstructure that has been built over it. It s a pretty straightforward thing actually.

[@bensden50]

Make it happen send something into the black hole. I'll sign the waver. Pay me a large sum build me a shuttle and send me in it.

[@mikel4879]

Bensden / And you will die there very quickly. Not because there would be the so-called ( non-existent ) "black holes" ( they don't exist, don't worry ), but because there are very huge temperatures and pressures created by the magnetic and electric hysteresis of the sub-atomic structures present there.

[@nealcampbell8772]

What happens in the black hole, stays in the black hole!

[@johnyharris]

Someone should have told Hawking Radiation!

[@JungleJargon]

Black holes hold limited quantifiable measureable time and space together. It's what allows for our existence. ✨️

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

Time doesn't travel.

[@kipponi]

Someone said we are living in a black hole!? Or is this white whole, who knows? This series go better every time. Maybe we are closer the truth now...

[@kaellum4260]

#PhilosophyOfTimeTravel for more on warp drives and wormholes by #3767

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Wrong . Time travel inside singularidades areimpossible. First of all phisc not show how singularities possibilities truly though Law phisc. He minds arnt concern phisc but has only opinion because he left true phich experiement evidence.

[@edwintsvangirayi3001]

TIME1.time00:00:24:00|time reZERO2019-10-15@2256hrsNOW12:21hrsomnipolar'ralverse universe verse in the law of spirit and life in christ jesus achristbchrist 1:8760 centre of conciousness holy spirit vibration instant constant mind then now then awareness TIME0.TIME1

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Ask dad, to explain that by fundamental physics. Thanks

[@Lillianachimp]

Again, I love the fact that these experts keep saying one day we will find the answer. Seems like alot of faith based on nothing more than speculation. Very religious like faith I would dare to say.

[@nealcampbell8772]

You think?

[@johnyharris]

Its faith in the scientific process, based on its past successes and its proven track record. Religious faith, on the other hand, is based on doctrine and a belief in a God. You can hardly equate the two.

[@mikel4879]

Johny Harris / No. By the way "science" looks today, it is exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, it will take some time until these square heads priests called "scientists" truly understand what "science" really is.

[@CeezGeez]

lolol ok

[@CeezGeez]

@@johnyharris at least someone in this thread understands the difference between scientific process and faith. ty

[@haroonaverroes6537]

they are just guessing mixed with childish imagination, physics still missing a lot and mathematics must make parallel progress, without a new revolutionary way of thinking there is no way to make a real progress. patching techniques alone will never work, it needs a new theory similar to what Einstein did, Einstein did his job (good work), only those naive will expect the old theories will work forever without revision and improvement (that is science). patching techniques will never make a real scientists, it needs minds with good logic that can digest the current theory to come up with a new revolutionary reliable physical theory. most of them are not a real scientists, lately I have noticed that some of them rely on thievery as patching techniques, one of them is a real thief, he wants to register what he has stolen as patent! this is not a joke. it needs a good minds with good logic, education alone will never make a real scientists, it needs both (good education and good logic) .

[@ironl4nd]

(good work)

[@abelincoln8885]

Nope. All we have to do, is accept that the Theory of Universal Functions is the scientific explanation for Sir Issac Newton's OBSERVATION over 300 years ago .. that the Universe( & Life) are like a Watch, composed of precision parts, which requires a Watchmaker to exist and to ..... FUNCTION. Newton did not realize that his Observation included four natural phenomena including Machine Analogies & Fine tuning ... and was clearly showing every thing is an Abstract (time, space, Laws) or physical ( matter, energy). Gravity is an Differential Equation with the Laws of Motion at its core, but requiring differential equations from Quantum physics and selective Functions from General relativity. There is not time-space curve. Time & space are Functions. Abstract time is fixed. But physical time (eg atomic Clock) will vary with changes in physical inputs that the clock is processing. Quantum Mechanics & General Relativity came 300 years after Newton's law of motion and 17 th Century view of the Physical Universe. Newton did not know a quantum or atomic particles ... nor about galaxies or black holes ... or that everything seen and unseen is a function. Remember Newton is the co-creator of Calculus & differential equations. The Theory of Everything is .... Universal Functions. And this was revealed 300 years ago, but was ignored because it was just an analogy and not real science.

[@CeezGeez]

it’s sad to see “black holes are mysterious therefore god” comments in 2022

[@actuallynph]

Why?

[@CeezGeez]

@@actuallynph because “gawd done it” isn’t a good theory for things we don’t yet understand

[@superjaykramer]

what's goin on with the cosmological constant? Answer that first before you start talking crap?

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

General relativity is wrong concept.

[@superjaykramer]

Why are you such a fence sitter?