Have We SOLVED The Black Hole Information Paradox with Wormholes?

[@JamesChuGJ]

"If you can entangle a particle, you can entangle a black hole" gave me the same vibe as "if you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball"

[@MarkusAldawn]

"If you can fix a skateboard, you can fix a fighter jet. Made in the Royal Navy."

[@jesuschrist2284]

​@@MarkusAldawnand your nob will be red raw from shagging in a week

[@jesuschrist2284]

Five rules of blackhole ball: bodge, buck, flip, contrive and bodge

[@Number6_]

If you can wrench a dodge you can fix up anything.

[@Total_Entropy36]

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. 🤔

[@deinemam7115]

I watch you now for like 5 years, starting as a high schooler, and now a physics student. And its really nice finally being able to somewhat understand what you say :D

[@nenmaster5218]

IMAGINE Scientific Integrity and Basic-Human-Compassion making PBS-Space-Time '''''go political''' (in 500 Quatationmarks) and say out loud: 'Conservatives spew bullfluff and Transgender is NOT abnormal or a Disease in any Way. Being not Straight overall is totally part of Nature, ALL of Science and nothing less than ALL of Science knows that." Can you imagine being so ''''''''''''politicallll'''''' to take a Stance against Pseudoscience being Weaponized? Can you imagine siding with the Opressed and with Science WHEN it means to oppose the big, scary Shapiro?

[@addammadd]

Funny, I’ve been watching the same amount of time, continue to just be your average adult intellect, continue to hardly understand any of it.

[@friedrichjunzt]

Lucky you! I have the feeling the more I Listen to these Videos, the less I understand. But being no physics Student, that is.

[@emsa5034]

When I was in chemistry in high school a few years ago we had this school project to make an infographic about any science thing we wanted, we just had to run it by my teacher first. I asked my teacher if I could do mine on black holes and he told me no because it wasn’t yet proven that they were real. Well they’re proven now mfer, I have photographic evidence 🤣

[@martinueding1218]

I had a similar experience with “Road to Reality” by Roger Penrose. I started reading it in high school and only after like five years of studying physics I had the impression to understand a significant part of it. And the more you learn, the more you realize that you don't know or are not specialized in. I did hadron physics and only had one semester or general relativity. So I watch videos like this and don't understand too much about the GR part.

[@TheFinagle]

I NEVER thought the universe was at maximum weirdness. There's always some way it can surprise you with things that don't seem to make sense, but clearly work anyway.

[@florinadrian5174]

Sooo weirdness is directly proportional with entropy?

[@isubtothebest6020]

What grade level you in?

[@nugboy420]

Maximum weirdness for sure. Agree with above post with no negativity tho :)

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@@florinadrian5174 I already have a machine that proves it on my channel !!!! eat rolled bologna ...with your butt lol 😆 😋 jk bout the bologna part .... lol just sounded funny but the above stated holds true beyond that....

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@@florinadrian5174 I already have a machine that proves it on my channel !!!! eat rolled bologna ...with your butt lol 😆 😋 jk bout the bologna part .... lol just sounded funny but the above stated holds true beyond that....

[@deankhalil8147]

I have been waiting my whole life to see a breakthrough in the stalemate between quantum and relativity that doesn't suggest there are a quadrillion dimensions. This does seem promising, I hope to hear more about it.

[@Paul-A01]

You don't need extra dimensions, you just need complex geometry wormholes that don't exist!

[@Tetrsd]

Do the islands that the wormholes connect to remind anyone else of alternate universes?

[@slowsilvr996]

@@Paul-A01 cant prove whether they do or dont exist yet.

[@ericeaton2386]

@@Paul-A01 No stranger than the Feynman path integral with it's time traveling, faster than light particles that don't exist.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

@@ericeaton2386 Exactly. It's all just a model to fit what we observe. We don't know what exists and what doesn't, it's a work in progress.

[@jamesraymond1158]

Richard Feynman came to the University of Alaska Fairbanks around the mid 1980s. He gave a public lecture on miniaturization, which I didn't find very interesting. But he also gave a seminar for the physics dept in a tiny classroom n which he described the Feynman path integral. I was amazed that his equation contained terms that had negative probabilities and probabilities greater than 1. Don't worry, he said it will all work out in the end. Sure enough all the weird terms cancelled out. I have marveled at this idea ever since. Thank you Matt for bringing it to our attention..

[@martinueding1218]

It's not just negative probabilities, but they are imaginary numbers that are added up. This gives you a matrix element, and the absolute value squared of that is the probability. So even if the matrix element comes out imaginary, the magnitude is by definition always positive.

[@Number6_]

​@@martinueding1218by definition; another good, I don't know why this works excuse, because in your imaginings this should not exist.

[@Number6_]

Negatives probilities lead to negative energizes. The sort of space time warp we are looking for.

[@attilathenun]

I really love this video. It feels like the convergence of many disparate ideas that have each stalled for years, but together they become more than the sum of their parts and point us to the next theoretical breakthrough.

[@spiralsun1]

YES. Soon everything is coming together. It’s the only way anything makes sense. 🥰👍🏻

[@Deltexterity]

if we're lucky we might even see a theory of everything in our lifetimes, that might be a little optimistic but it does feel like all the pieces are falling into place together.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

The paper is 2 years old though. If it was really a breakthrough, would we only be hearing about it 2 years after being published?

[@GameTimeWhy]

​@@ElectronFieldPulse sometimes it takes a while to understand where a new paper sits with everything else.

[@Deltexterity]

@@ElectronFieldPulse maybe, actually, yeah, since it takes years to actually test everything and look for flaws in theories. there's never really any one point in time where we can be certain that it holds up, since it's not feasible to challenge the theory in every way possible, so ultimately there's never a point where we can say with *absolute* certainty that a theory is true. for that reason, the probability of a theory being true only increases after every new challenge thrown at it that doesn't disprove it, but it never reaches 100%. as time goes on, the probability goes up, and as that probability goes up it gains more media attention as well.

[@ilkoderez601]

Another great episode. I always appreciate every episode but this is one of the _REALLY_ good one. Nice job team!!!

[@ultimaIXultima]

I said the same thing! This one really hit the nail on the head - in four+1 dimensions!

[@bigyeticane]

I was going to post exactly what you said. #samepageclub

[@FAAMS1]

So you mean its intriguing because you don't really understand it but it sounds deep or do you mean you fully understand it to know it is good? Is your subconscious mind trying to associate itself with the cool guys by stating I do get it and thus it is a good episode? I am sorry I am just curious about youtube typical comments...

[@austin4855]

​@@FAAMS1 I think rather than the condescending conclusion you've arrived at, there's a simpler reason people like this one: the message in the video comes across as hopeful.

[@calsavestheworld]

Really? I think the host is very bad at broadcasting. Good for some KZbin kid but not for PBS.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Fun Fact: Two papers, both written by Albert Einstein in 1935, form the foundation of the resolution of the Blackhole Information Paradox. The first, called the EPR Paper, was the first to point out the bizarre properties of quantum entanglement. This might be Einsteins most underrated paper because it essentially started Quantum Information Theory as a field. The second paper Einstein wrote was on Einstein-Rosen Bridges (I.e. wormholes), which are theoretical shortcuts through the spacetime continuum. Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind call this ER = EPR The man was a mind-boggling genius. Even now, 100 years after the fact, Einstein is still spearheading the cutting edge of physics from the grave.

[@KSignalEingang]

It is obligatory here to mention Susskind's oft-repeated observation on the consequences of the ER=EPR correlation, namely, that P=1.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@KSignalEingang - What is P?

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

@@ElectronFieldPulse A math joke.

[@KSignalEingang]

@@ElectronFieldPulse Boris Podolsky, who was lucky & talented enough to collaborate w/ Einstein & Rosen very early in his career (post-grad I think?) but foolish enough to blab about unpublished work to the newspapers, after which he never got the chance to work with E again. So the EPR paper might really have been his 1. (This is all from memory.. I'm sure a more complete & accurate version of this story is on Wikipedia or somewhere, but you can look that up yourself).

[@piculra7441]

@@KSignalEingang I'd think the joke would also be that if ER=EPR, then E times R is equal to E times P times R, which must mean P = 1. If ER = EPR, then ER/EPR = 1. Therefore, P = 1.

[@jlinder87]

This kind of reminds me of the double-slit experiment. Since nothing outside the black hole's event horizon can observe anything that has crossed over the black hole's event horizon, all versions of the black hole’s collapse exist at once.

[@nenmaster5218]

IMAGINE Scientific Integrity and Basic-Human-Compassion making PBS-Space-Time '''''go political''' (in 500 Quatationmarks) and say out loud: 'Conservatives spew bullfluff and Transgender is NOT abnormal or a Disease in any Way. Being not Straight overall is totally part of Nature, ALL of Science and nothing less than ALL of Science knows that." Can you imagine being so ''''''''''''politicallll'''''' to take a Stance against Pseudoscience being Weaponized? Can you imagine siding with the Opressed and with Science WHEN it means to oppose the big, scary (edgy) Ben Shapiro?

[@theviewerofart]

Can it work this way? We can still observe the results from outside the black hole. Is it enough that the black hole cannot "see" its own collapse? If so, that is incredibly cool and just mind-boggling.

[@AnAngryMarauder]

@@nenmaster5218 wat

[@CarletonTorpin]

7:00 - “no string theories attached” is some of the best writing I’ve yet seen on this excellent series.

[@marshall1864]

Thus making Richard Feynman, with his clever mathematical trick (in the highest sense of that word) for QED, the true hero of a story written long after his premature passing. Would that he had lived another couple decades or so, to have possibly discovered it himself. What a wonderful episode.

[@u_t2347]

I can usually follow along with these videos, they're explained well. This one though I think I'll have to save an watch a few times. Don't change a thing though, it's great to have to do my own homework. 🖖🏼✌🏼

[@markmuller7962]

Same here, this time around I'm struggling way beyond any previous video

[@innocentbystander3317]

I usually got homework to do after SpaceTime, but it's a joy to learn! Also, not as much homework as Isaac Arthur gives. At least Matt more or less sticks to one topic, but a Science & Futurism video draws on a huge knowledge base across many different subjects. Tough to keep up in just a week!

[@neilhopwoodsjugband]

Yeah, I thought I heard some things that really gave me pause this time. Did he not say...that impossible probabilities change the behavior of black holes? I was like...WAIT...ahhh...if they're impossible...how can they be possibilities? Might need a tylenol.

[@markmuller7962]

@@innocentbystander3317 I know Isaac Arthur but tbh he's as shallow and simple as a dried up pond compared to this channel, not to mention the conspiracy/mystery boomer tendencies that he struggles to keep at bay all the time

[@KarlSnarks]

Same, during his explanation of the paradox I kinda just zoned out because I couldn't follow.

[@MSheepdog]

Your description of adding up multiple impossible geometries for a single black hole giving a new result reminds me of when I learnt differentiation by first principles, in that it was like hacking around our current maths tools to get to new truths. In calculus that was finding a way to divide by zero in dy/dx to get a new formula describing a curve as opposed to having an impossible equation. Here it's also digging into the impossible to derive a new useful equation!

[@keenanlarsen1639]

I have nowhere near the level of mathematical chops required for this stuff, but your videos do a great job of explaining it. Thanks for that. I like to understand these new ideas the best I can.

[@martinueding1218]

A really good theoretical physicist cannot only do the complicated math, but also convey the big picture of what they are doing. I've seen students really confused when they were asked to describe their works in simple terms. They could only write down equations, but didn't have a down-to-earth picture. Matt here clearly shows that he understands both the topic and the target audience, which makes the videos so great.

[@max-fj7np]

As somebody who doesn't have a formal physics or science background but has an amateur enthusiasm and love for it, I would love to run into Matt one day and pick his brain. Ask dozens of stupid questions. I get get the feeling it wouldn't annoy him. Seems like he has the ability to understand and level with people across all backgrounds when it comes to describing reality. Ive watched every episode since the Gabe days and this channel has a special way of putting complex topics into focus for all audiences. Hope this channel never goes away!

[@martinueding1218]

When you have mastered a topic, you can understand “stupid” questions and have answers to them. Teaching is one of the best ways to learn more, I had so many presuamly stupid questions that I couldn't answer at first and that let me grow in the end.

[@photinodecay]

This sounds like having a cloud of virtual wormholes around a black hole, the same way that a quark would have a cloud of bosons around it.

[@ultimaIXultima]

Right? It's almost like the black hole is the particle, and everything else around it are the minut fluctuations that make up the quantum foam. Scale is a crazy thing!

[@Ohem1]

I didn’t understand much in the video of what was used to explain but I always had the notion ”The world of the big is a reflection of the small”, and the subject kinda reinforced the idea.

[@darkprototype5353]

@CRIMNALSNEAK None of what you said here is true (I don't mean that in a hostile way). Black holes may have similar distinct characteristics (spin, mass, and charge) but there is a huge difference between them and fundamental particles. They dont "behave" the same way at all. There is no "wormhole to the future" in or around a black hole. If you manage to get pulled inside, and not turned into plasma in the accretion disk, your time and space coordinates merge, and you will be spaghettified and (depending on which interpretation you follow) either be pulled into the singularity, or your information will reach equilibrium within the black hole. Non of that involves you going to the future. As for matter quantum tunneling, it doesn't quite work that way. Hawking Radiation is explained incorrectly here (which is understandable since hawking himself made this poor metaphor about virtual particles) but the actual mechanics of it dont involve tunneling or entanglement.

[@photinodecay]

@@Ohem1 as far as we understand physics, that sentiment isn't really valid. But maybe at the very limits of big and small it does apply and only in the middle, between the sizes of things like DNA and proteins to supergiant stars, do we have the kinds of interactions that we consider to be macroscopic or classical today.

[@janpaulbusch1437]

Sounds like a typical esotheric fallacy: “the sun is the atom core and planets are electrons...“ which is a similar, classic belief. It is based on the “mindblowing“ amazement that we feel when thinking that maybe, the universe repeats itself in scale, over and over again. In this belief you can also scale down and you will “find“ the thought that maybe atoms are planets with small invisible people living on them! we just cant see them yet. Wow! So amazing.

[@EarlWallaceNYC]

Excellent ! You guys really hit the target on this one. This channel has to walk that thin line between "Whu-Whu" and the whelming details of original research papers. You did it on this video. Now I "have to" support you guys financially. This is too important to me.

[@idontwantahandlethough]

Lol I don't think I've ever seen someone say 'whelming' before. Overwhelming and underwhelming, sure! But just whelming?!! UGH I AM SO *WHELMED* BY YOUR WORD CHOICE RIGHT NOW EARL!

[@Wassermelonenbaum]

...and its made possible by people like you! Nice one on the support!

[@SuperSupper2]

Thank you for taking your time with this one! This was a lot to take in, I'll probably have to watch again before diving into the sources

[@kiyoaki1985]

One thing I've been wondering about: in ADS/CFT it seems like the event horizons act like boundaries of holographic spacetime, so is every black hole in a way "connected" in that they are all part of the same boundary, or does each of them constitute a different boundary? I mean specifically that they are the boundary of the OUTER spacetime (not the spacetime within the event horizon, but the spacetime outside the black hole).

[@cristoferharris5928]

This episode left me smiling. I studied physics for a number of years and conducted research for a University for a while, though opportunities left me in a chemistry career field. Nevertheless, this is extremely exciting news, and such an interesting time for physics! It is sad that Hawking was not alive to see this conceptual gap be closed, but he would be ecstatic if he knew the great things we were accomplishing! Keep up the great work!

[@CaesarIscariot]

Woo!!! never saw a PBS space time video the first minute it came out, love you Matt, keep making amazing stuff....

[@n3whous3]

I had the same now actually :D and had the same thought

[@MirorR3fl3ction]

Turns out Path Integral concept may be one of the greatest discovery of all time. Its required for quantum mechanics, provides the key benefits of quantum computing over traditional computation, and now may be the solution to the blackhole information paradox

[@Duiker36]

@Toughen Up, Fluffy Especially the ones in Australia.

[@kazedcat]

You just need to find the virtual road that connects Australia to Rome.

[@HarryG98]

@@kazedcat Australia doesn’t exist so that road will read nowhere

[@gene51231356]

Physicists looking at a wormhole: "Can this solve the black hole information paradox?" Normal people looking at a wormhole: "WOOHOO a wormhole, can I fly through this??"

[@punkypinko2965]

And there's probably a Starbucks, 7-11 and McDonalds on the other side.

[@sumans7620]

@@punkypinko2965 Probably a Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[@sebastianalegre7148]

@@sumans7620 Seems like it would get a long time to get there

[@timothyoswald8618]

And the overlap of the two groups is where the real party happens!

[@WindsorMason]

@@timothyoswald8618 woohoo, can flying through a wormhole solve the black hole information paradox?

[@Tonyface666]

I read a paper about a year ago (can't remember where), talking about a similar model where as the "interior" of the black hole becomes more and more entangled with the outside world by emitting Hawking radiation, the probability of the black hole's unobservable geometry flipping itself inside out grows, and as it reaches the peak of the Page curve it does flip, and from that point on, the Hawking radiation particles emitted are the entangled pairs of the ones emitted previously. Or something like that. Like I said, I can't remember where I came across the paper was so it was difficult to revise :P

[@Nighthunter006]

In machine learning we sometimes say that the process of finding new network architectures is "graduate student descent" (a play on "gradient descent"). I'll be sure to supplement my vocabulary with "performing theoretical path integrals" when appropriate!

[@monkatraz]

The fact that calculating the entropy of multiple black holes is easier than just doing a single one is just bizarre. Also, if we're "taking the limit" as N -> 1, does that mean that N is continuous? Like... 1.5 black holes?

[@drdca8263]

My impression is that treating a number that ought to be an integer as if it is continuous variable, and taking a limit as it goes to a particular integer, is a thing physicists are sometimes willing to do, if it gets them an answer. (e.g. if some thing works for n < 4 , but hasn't been shown to be well-defined for n=4 or n > 4 , but they can take the limit as n -> 4 and get a number, they will take that limit and run with the result? I think?)

[@asylumofglass]

Very exciting! I was happy to hear you drop ADS/CFT Correspondence. It's so weird. Leonard Susskind said pointing a laser at a special silicon sphere would create the analogue of a black hole inside of the sphere. If the lasers were split and the photons entangled, then shone on two silicon spheres then there would be a black hole in each sphere and a wormhole connecting them. Completely nutso. I'd love to see a video about it because I'm sure I'm not understanding entirely correctly.

[@SpectatingBystander]

Still my favourite show even though I've no idea what's going on 😅

[@jennifersaar1611]

Seriously, it's like the Spanish I took in high school. I now understand about every 5th word. 😆

[@SoundzAlive1]

I think my primate brain has quite a few evolutionary steps to make before I can start to understand this.

[@Xeridanus]

I'm pretty sure the butler did it and the maid helped cover it up. Wait, wrong show.

[@michaelchildish]

It's taken me about 2 years of just absorbing this channel for concepts, Anton Petrov's for 'objects' and occasionally dipping into more advanced stuff, just to *begin* to get a basic understanding. I haven't quite achieved even basic understanding yet!

[@federov100]

After listening for the tenth time, suddenly I get it-sort of. Glad this hasn’t been dumbed down.

[@dominicellis1867]

It’s crazy how complex numbers are always involved in the most interesting and crazy math and physics problems. From quantum superposition to gravitational path integrals to music theory and sound engineering. It honestly makes no sense how the sqrt(-1) has anything to do with the fundamental nature of reality.

[@sharpsheep4148]

Euler: e^(pi * i) + 1 = 0 Amazes me every time I look at it.

[@En1gmaUnknown]

@@sharpsheep4148 holy #$#((@&#@) i have never seen that before but my eyes have been opened

[@l1mbo69]

The framework that inventing complex numbers create is very effective at describing frequency, because of the fundamental relation of Euler's formula and the unit circle that comes out

[@dominicellis1867]

@@l1mbo69 the crazy part is that pretty much everything in the universe can be described via waveforms of certain frequencies meaning complex numbers are a central part of reality. If aliens do exist, they’ve most certainly exploited complex geometry to traverse the universe to find us.

[@MendTheWorld]

@@dominicellis1867 Well, that _would_ explain the lizard people now, wouldn’t it?

[@BB-cf9gx]

Blackholes are a massive ball of paradox, contradiction and mystery. Very much fun to ponder.

[@Singularity.82]

Not a ball, but an eggshell.

[@davidhand9721]

Can I get a moratorium on using virtual particles being portrayed as a physical reality to explain things? They are perturbation terms in the Lagrangian. They are partial estimates of the potential energy of a set of coupled fields. The most generous reality we can assign them is as frequency components of a Fourier transform of their quantum field, and that means they are smeared across the entire universe. They aren't on opposite sides of an event horizon if they don't have a position at all. I realize that the cartoon version makes for a better story that people can walk away from feeling like they get it, but that isn't always the best outcome for science education or communication. The huge majority of comments I've seen so far are asking about irrelevant, impossible extrapolations of one simplification or another. At least show the math; that way, people are aware that their understanding is not the end of the story.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

I am glad you said this, as I have read a similar conclusion on a physics forum. I am not a physicist, but I understand people take virtual particles way too literally. If you don't mind, I have a question. Is a Lagrangian like a primary direction a particle can move in each axis, so any movements will be modifications of Lagrangians? I thought I read something like that, obviously way too simplified. Or am I way off? What do you mean it perturbed the Lagrangian? Trying new values to see what your resulr is? I understand coupled fields, as in if one field has an oscillation it will cause an oscillation in another field, right? That is how quantum fields which can affect each other actually do it.

[@TysonJensen]

@@ElectronFieldPulse op means they are pure math. They aren’t particles in any real sense. There’s no geometric way to think about them. The real Hawking radiation particles for a given black hole can technically appear anywhere in the Universe! So, pretending that particle pairs appear at the event horizon is actively wrong.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@TysonJensen - Neat! I watched the video where they explained it had something to do with black holes excluding certain wavelengths, meaning there is a type of vacuum that causes particles to be emitted, but I am probably butchering the explanation.

[@ultimaIXultima]

@@TysonJensen they could appear anywhere in the universe, but that doesn't mean they will - just like I could try to walk through the wall of my bedroom - I'm not going to succeed, but it is entirely possible it could happen. Or like if I tried to play the lottery today I would ultimately lose but that does not mean it is not possible for me to buy my parents a new home tomorrow on a whim.

[@MendTheWorld]

@@TysonJensen If particles can appear anywhere, do we need a big bang? So much of cosmology depends on the red shift representing a Doppler shift. What if it’s not? Sorry, I have no idea what I’m talking about. Just ignore me. (Everyone else already does that, except for my dog.)

[@bersl2]

I have a feeling that the "physical interpretation" of these replica black holes is going to be a repeat of the QM case. Certainly the use of a path integral suggests "shut up and calculate" as a reasonable approach. The question I have is what kinds of testable predictions a framework like this can produce. Also, I think this is going to be a new record mind blow.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

The problem is they didnt take Einstein seriously in the 30s when he was trying to delineate between anti-realism and empiricism, while Bohr was droning on and on with scientific mysticism. And Von Neumanns erroneous "proof of the completeness of quantum mechanics" which is certainly the worst paper he ever wrote, didnt help either. I don't think we will ever be able to quantized gravity due to Special Relativity being so fundamental to quantum field theory (i.e. why fast moving particles decay at different rates than slow moving particles etc).

[@l1mbo69]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 what does SR have to do with quantizing gravity

[@l1mbo69]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 both GR and QFT include effects of SR

[@Kram1032]

Oh this sounds like a pretty big leap forward. Having superpositions of arbitrary local geometries sounds like a nightmare though, wow

[@anywallsocket]

It is already known that the gravity you feel now is the superposition of all massive objects in the entire cosmic horizon, so it’s not necessarily new to apply superposition to gravity, especially since the waves were discovered.

[@Kram1032]

@@anywallsocket I mean that's kinda already a Newtonian Gravity-level concept. Gotta add together all point masses to get the total effect of gravity. But dealing with curved spacetime is notoriously difficult afaik. Quite a different beast. I'm guessing the fact that you can do this in a statistical manner, using many different geometries, is somehow helpful though. Tends to be that the difficult parts happen to zero out and you're left with something surprisingly clean. Haven't actually seen the calculations though and I'm sure it's still tricky as heck. If it weren't, it'd probably have been attempted sooner. Giving this more intuition is gonna be an important next step. Maybe that'll also help with finding easier tools. I wonder how this concept of the gravitational path integral relates to the recentish advances in terms of the amplituhedron which apparently dramatically simplifies regular path integrals

[@notgonnabetelling1469]

"No string theories attached" Whoever does the writing for your show needs our gratitude, I started laughing as soon as I heard it, MARVELLOUS.

[@allgodsmyth7318]

"If you can entangle a particle, you can entangle a black hole." Reminds me of the quote from Dodgeball, "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

[@mitsuracer87]

But can you wrench a Dodge?

[@MarcinSzyniszewski]

I found the paper "Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox" by Pennington very understandable and easy to read, especially the introduction at page 2-3, and (a bit more technical) summary of results at page 51-54.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

nice paper, just got the abstract so far but it's readable

[@andersjjensen]

"The map is not the terrain" is a saying I like to remind myself of every time scientists go space cookie with the math. They may be right, but they may also just be barking up an incomplete model and extrapolating complete nonsense as a consequence.

[@AndroidPoetry]

Yep. Physics is not math. This is clear when you have 50 mathematically consistent models, but only one of them will actually describe reality.

[@pauldacon828]

"The world is not in your maps and books, it's out there."

[@backtothebando9983]

Best channel on KZbin 100%

[@Zithorius]

This is like getting the math right on a tension bridge and seeing a boulder being held up by strings when it looks like it should crash down. Except without the physical bridge being there to confirm the mathematical representation.

[@microwave221]

This reminds me of Hawking's last stance on the information paradox that I am entirely misremembering but it seemed to hinge on the information not being destroyed because there was something like a universe where it never entered the singularity in the first place. Like perhaps an arbitrary number of universes where an identical black hole was created through different means, if they were all connected though an internal wormhole, all the information could be conserved in different pieces in the different universes. This is absolutely not what's happening or what these new teams are describing, but it's late, I've had several twisted teas, and I want to share my physical reality fan fiction.

[@Vienna3080]

I love watching these videos because I don’t understand anything he’s saying but i love listening to it

[@tumbleddry2887]

Is it ever possible for entangled pairs to be "broken" so they no longer have a connection? That is to say, could we have it wrong about entanglement when it comes to such extreme environments as black holes?

[@andrewfleenor7459]

I'm fuzzy on the details, but I remember a precise accounting of the energy required to break entanglement being a factor in black hole firewall types of solutions. So it's possible.

[@janpaulbusch1437]

Hey sorry sir or lady but your question reveals lack of understandding in the concept of entanglement. I beg myself not to lecture away the details. There are many miconceptions in pop-science especially in entanglement.

[@Majorohminus]

Seems like they dug really deep into different things to get a picture of something that fits the math. Which heavily depends on if the assumptions they made were correct. Just like string theory, if you tried to fit things with math, you get many solutions, there is no way to tell if the solution fits our universe unless there is experimental possibility. For all we know, the path integral could be something completely different in all cases and it just so happens to fit the math since we can't actually measure a particle taking imaginary paths and summing them.

[@kj22697]

Exactly, and not to mention the role the observer plays in these phenomena too. We can make the universe into what ever we want it to be if we play with numbers long enough

[@FunkyDexter]

The thing is, different maths take us to the same conclusion. String theory and gravitational path integral are not related, at least on a surface level. Can it really just be a coincidence? Of course, the universe has no interest in appearing "beautiful" mathematically to us. Sabine Hossenfelder made an entire book about the topic, but it didn't seem to reach a conclusion to me. The same business happens with AdS/CFT correspondence. It is an incredible mathematical tool, but it just doesn't describe our de Sitter universe. Should we abandon the idea entirely, or try and expand on it?

[@subjekt5577]

I mean, theres at least precedence for this "type" of math manifesting in an experimentally verifiable way, with the energy gap in the ...s? Orbital

[@TechSY730]

True, but they got results similar to a predicted outcome (the page curve) using a different set of assumptions than string theory's. That _might_ be a sign there is something a bit more fundamental at play. That said, yes, this is all academic theory crafting until we start getting testable predictions. Which the Page curve itself is not testable because how the heck are we going to measure a black hole's entropy?

[@needlessToo]

Most of this went over my head but I think I got the general idea. Amazing stuff as always.

[@Lightning_Lance]

Just trying to imagine how folded in on itself the universe has to be for all black holes to be possibly attached by wormholes... that's an arbitrarily high number of folds. Anyway, it's a really cool idea for science fiction stories. And it would be pretty amazing if a sufficiently advanced species could use this to travel to and from every black hole in the universe, thus making intergalactic travel possible. Like a gallery of worlds kind of thing.

[@jaakkopontinen]

The story you propose could have an industry of gravity gradient tolerant materials. It would set some hardness into the fiction. Also different vessels of different capability by extension, enabling different types of transports / cargo by X mass black holes. A major story enabler could then be "first ship to be able to traverse a supermassive black hole into a stellar mass black hole", making all sorts of political / socionomic / ecological disruptions available via the changing landscape of travel. Not stealing your thunder, just that your idea was fascinating :)

[@eddevinney9714]

I guess all the interconnection is emergent with the birth of the Universe. Maybe the Big Bang and black holes are kind of 'dual'?

[@JeeVeeHaych]

That kind of reminded me of the storyline for The Expanse (spoiler alert if you haven't seen it yet). It features a spherical 'hub' of sorts, with multiple 'portals' to other sections of space.

[@zen_of_chloe]

This is the most amazing thing I’ve seen ever: actual quantum gravity. It’s in the special case of a black hole where you don’t have any matter to interfere with the geometry most of the time, but it’s still quantum gravity. It’s doing the hard part of integrating across all the possible geometries by temporarily putting off the other hard part of modeling most of the particles that made the gravity. It’s like the quantum gravity version of the Schwarzschild metric. The simplest possible way to get to the next step. I am thrilled

[@davidhand9721]

It's really not, though.

[@idontwantahandlethough]

@@davidhand9721 Please elaborate, I am intrigued :)

[@innocentbystander3317]

@@davidhand9721 Oh, well, there we have it! Some random doofensmirt on KZbin just deboonk'd OP, and he didn't even need to test the idea to produce data! Science, everyone. Don't question it, just trust it... 🤡🌎

[@Tacet137]

@@innocentbystander3317 OP wrote complete nonsense so what's your problem

[@innocentbystander3317]

@@Tacet137 I assume that if you had good reason to call it nonsense, you would have provided as much, so the only option we have left is to assume you think it's nonsense simply because you are too limited to understand and failed to take personal responsibility for your ignorance by getting yourself educated. My problem is there is no way to take you seriously when the best you can do is basically nothing.

[@jacobcollier821]

Super work everyone. I especially love the playlists.

[@timseguine2]

The gravitational path integral idea sounds suspiciously like what one would expect from "quantum gravity"

[@timelyseeker]

the answers are right in front of us and we still don't know

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Gravity cant be quantized though. That's the problem

[@timelyseeker]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 there might be a method

[@timseguine2]

@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 It can and has been through so called "Effective Field Theories", but there is no expectation that those are correct since they basically just say "let's ignore everything that has more energy than this specific amount."

[@TrulyNaN]

"No string theories attached" without laughing. Give this man an Oscar.

[@mokopa]

String theory is increasingly becoming the butt of many jokes and slights, I've noticed. It has taken academia a few decades, but now it seems the gloves are coming off. I myself was initially greatly intrigued by string theory (especially with heavyweights such as Edward Witten involved) but it just didn't sit right with me, as with many others. Really glad I'm not a string theorist now...tsk tsk

[@evolutionarydeadend6812]

You may enjoy knowing that a big boobied bot copied your comment and is currently at the top of the list now. Well done!

[@Ricocossa1]

Couple of notes: a big shadow of doubt over these results is that they were obtained in JT gravity, which is a 2D version of gravity actually very different from 4D gravity. The path integral in JT gravity is completely understood, whereas nobody really has any idea of how to do it in 4D. So that might give people an idea of how far we are yet from having that sorted out. Also, as an anecdote, one of the authors of those papers is Maldacena, the father of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

So really all we have to do is prove the holographic principle, and then entangled BH will be accepted. At least on the corresponding 2D surface world. Sounds doable. Probably next year then?

[@Ricocossa1]

@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I'm not aware of any holographic principle involving JT gravity. But more or less yes, the difficulty is generalizing these beautiful results to actual gravity in 4d. It's much easier sais than done because in higher dimension you lose a lot of the arsenal that makes computations easier. When I say 2D I mean one dimension of space, one dimension of time. You don't even have spin, photons, or gravitons.

[@rafakordaczek3275]

3:30 The way I thought about this is somehow "remotely" measuring the quantum state of an entangled particle inside a black hole and comparing it to the state of it's counterpart. However, I don't think that such experiment would be possible.

[@PetraKann]

How do extract information remotely from a singularity?

[@anywallsocket]

Not from the singularity just behind the event horizon. And yes, according to L. Suskind it is possible, but you could never communicate that confirmation back out. Unless of course as he has suggested, you have a system of 2 entangled blackholes, e.g. a wormhole. In that case you start with 2 pairs of entangled particles, one goes in the first blackhole, the second goes into the other one, and then due to the blackhole’s own entanglement, the inner parties themselves become entangled, meaning, the two outside ones will also be entangled, with which a correlation could be proven.

[@matthra]

perhaps with analog blackholes?

[@asherplatts6253]

I wanna know more about these complex geometries. I love trying to thing about higher dimensional geometries, and I have this hunch that the topology of complex geometries might be helpful for understanding the ways that atomic nuclei alter the topology of spacetime to create the various resonant shapes of electron valances (but again, this is just a wild hunch).

[@rupenupe1]

This is one of the episodes that I’d need an advanced physics degree to follow. Went straight over my head.

[@user-or3bb6es5h]

One doesn't need an advanced degree to understand physics. Knowing the really advanced calculations is only useful to make predictions. We just want to understand reality better.

[@innocentbystander3317]

Don't worry, we all end up in the singularity one way or another, and eventually. So, in full confidence, you _will_ catch up, and you won't even have to study if you don't want to.

[@marden3761]

No degree needed, pick it up as a hobby. Study the concepts and terminology rather than the equations, and take the mask off so your brain can get oxygen.

[@jasonstiletto]

I remember watching a video where someone was describing quantum computing which made me wonder if black holes contained all possible configurations of the information at the same time, since they're relatively isolated from the rest of the universe.

[@Singularity.82]

What does "Time" even mean to a surface where matter converted to energy (information) moves at c?

[@das_it_mane]

Incredible breakdown of something new to think about. Thank you Matt

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Nah, I _knew_ the universe _could and probably would_ get weirder, Matt. 😄 Guess that's because I'm old enough to have seen it throw a few intense curveballs at us, already! 😉😄 Thanks for all that those of you at Space Time do for us viewers. You are very appreciated! ❤️❤️

[@electrospank]

Nothing in the universe makes me feel more stupid than when watching this channel. I have a bachelor's degree in physical science and I have an incredibly hard time believing other people are smart enough to figure this stuff out. Man. I love it though. Yes I love it when you make me feel stupid!

[@andoletube]

Same - my friends all think I'm the smartest guy they know, but when I watch things like this, it reminds me that I'm a total phony!

[@SpikeMoby]

The more I learn the more I realise I don’t know. Reverse Dunning-Kruger as it were 😎

[@N1h1L3]

I'm a pretty smart guy according to my IQ test, with an interest in science and history, but when watching this type of video's I'm just thinking "Sure, if you say so !", mainwhile hanging on to the parts I do understand and trying to build an understanding of the (black) whole. I love it when I feel dumb for a change :)

[@johncurtis920]

HA! This to your "hard time believing other people are smart enough..." Yeah, I feel like that often, too, with this channel. And individually that might be true. But every once in few generations an intellectual "ah HAAAA!" super-nova occurs and there is brilliance that radiates out from a single individual, like an Einstein. From their epiphany they open up a door onto whole new realms of perception and thinking. Afterwards there is the sort of group interaction, exploration and knowledge seeking within that new realm, such as is revealed by this great channel and all it produces. For me it makes me realize just how much we know truly comes as a result of consensus building post-nova (if you will). Yes, it occasionally comes off the rails, of course, as all group thinking does, but it satisfies and suffices until the next brilliant primate comes along, one who can spring from all the knowledge garnered to date and who by epiphanies of their own then proceeds to open the next great door from which it starts all over again. And ever onward we go, eh?

[@SG-tx1fz]

Congrats you are a masorquist XD

[@djayjp]

I could see a black hole actually having the lowest possible entropy as it's all contained, fixed within a very small space, similar to the beginning of the universe.

[@beelsewhere4502]

Unfortunately, while a black hole appears simple, it also creates a nearly infinite distortion of local spacetime, which maximizes entropy. In contrast, spacetime in the early universe was essentially flat.

[@djayjp]

@@beelsewhere4502 I've heard that black holes may only be defined by 2 properties: angular momentum and surface area. Also the very early universe, prior to inflation, was very much the same as a black hole in that it possessed extreme density.

[@beelsewhere4502]

Three properties, also electric charge. But I digress, the early universe and black holes have many similarities, but one essential difference, both are thought to be extremely dense, but in the early universe, spacetime was very flat and entropy was minimized, while in a black hole spacetime is not flat, and entropy is maximized. Roger Penrose is very good at clarifying this distinction.

[@ryanrauber4669]

Wow!!! We need like 7 more episodes dedicated to this.

[@lucanegri3505]

What an episode... my brain just exploded, I'm so glad to be alive here and now listening to all of this. Cannot say anything but "Amazing" and "WTF 'r u serious??""

[@SupLuiKir]

What if there is no possible physical representation for these Path integrals? That reality just works as if these path integrals were there even though they are strictly Imaginary? What if from now on, we're forced into a model of physics where much of the ruleset is Imaginary, that what we measure is only possible if reality is only a small slice of what's really going on behind the scenes, that the improbable and impossible phenomena that *don't* happen is just as important as what does happen?

[@stanimirborov3765]

yeaa the matrix reality is a illusion

[@ThatCrazyKid0007]

You can have entirely different models converge to the same answer even if they barely share any similarities. The most probable scenario is that these models are just another way to express what is physically happening without directly being mapped to the phenomena itself, meaning they are not direct descriptions of reality but can converge to the same outcomes that occur in reality. Remember, the real power and significance of a theory isn't to describe how the system works, it is simply to predict the outcome of a system given a certain set of conditions.

[@stanimirborov3765]

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 yeaaaaaa nice maybe. i can agree with that, had it as a idea in my brain but sometimes its hard to accept such a thing because we cant be sure of what reality is n everything.. experiments, rules, conditions.. but what u said neatly explains what we mean by theories and the processes..how to interpret what a theory means, but yea it would be hard to ever get the full picture

[@ebenolivier2762]

This is already the case in quantum mechanics so it's logical to assume (in my mind at least) that black holes behave in this way as well since they can be thought of as "large elementary particles". I think a black hole is just a scaled up elementary particle like an electron.

[@PetraKann]

Any connection between Mathematical objects and Science is purely coincidental. Mathematics is part if the Arts Faculty like painting, modern dance and sculpture

[@thomasstegen3507]

We accept that conservation of energy does not hold at very large scales because time-translation symmetry is broken by expanding space. Since the symmetry of time reversibility underlies conservation of quantum information, and black holes have an extreme effect on time, can we say that quantum information is actually not conserved near or in black holes?

[@Xeridanus]

That would require an equally bizarre theory to explain. Either way, we learn something.

[@kylestanley4734]

So I read a scientific article that I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around and was hoping you could possibly help out maybe with an explanation or possibly even a link to further data. It's about a group of scientists who were able to continuously produce a Bose/Einstein condensate for use as a lazing medium to produce a matter wave laser. Google searches at best kept bringing me back to the original article at worst had nothing to offer. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated from anyone.

[@Robinson8491]

I love this. The Meinongian analysis of (possible but not actual) wormholes is actually working. Awesome. Feynmans logic is amazing, and it's so mysterious about nature it blows my mind: why has possibility the same merit as actuality? it says so much about nature, and our universe! Like we are approaching it all wrong in our daily lives: we are actually the exception, not the norm (existence/ manifestation)

[@JohnDoe33408]

"...this is the general relativistic analogue of the Feynman path integral." Ah yes, thank you for putting it in terms of something I understand.

[@Geaxuce]

Being the armchair scientist that I am, I have a gut feeling that we're thinking about blackhole far to complexly. The idea at the beginning of this video about information being essentially "deleted" from reality is, in my mind, much more probable to being just moved from the visible universe to the edges of the universe we can't yet see. It seems more likely, to me, that, if named appropriately, that blackhole would refer to... a hole... perhaps the point of entry to wormholes not unlike the currents of the ocean. This seems like a likely explaination to the evaporation of blackholes. Just like ocean currents, the way space flows is also constantly shifting. If, however, they are actually balls of mass then they ought to be renamed to something that isn't the antithesis to what it is. If we are suggesting that blackholes need to break physics in order to exist then either our understand of physics is flawed or our understanding of blackholes is. A hole is not massive. Holes done have mass. They are pockets of space surrounded and can be filled with mass. But a hole itself contains zero mass. The rate of acceleration applied onto an object increases the closer it gets to the center of orbital mass. This isn't contrary to holes not having mass. You need to atleast 3 objects of mass in a 3 dimensional space to create an orbit. If you have particles of mass in a boundless 3 dimensional space all having some amount or form of gravitational influence on everything else I feel like it would be a safe bet to say that it would flow like the oceans but on a major, MAJOR scale. But i have no name or weight in this game so what could I possibly know based on observation alone.

[@MrDJAK777]

Whenever they say "breaks physics" they literally mean "our model and understanding of physics cannot currently explain this we don't know. But we already knew it was wrong and this gives us a good place to look though." Not that the actual physics happening are broken or affected in any way.

[@emilialittle1002]

The term black hole is from the 60/70s I believe,I would definitely double check that, when Einstein first imagined them he called them gravitational catastrophes or "black stars" was another old name when the concept of a star that wouldn't allow light to escape was first brought up in newtons day

[@phillipcoetzer8186]

I'm so confused now ... from all I've learned on blacholes it seems to me that space time is basically spun into a ball of yarn by the spin of a black hole and that's the trajectory you would have to follow in order to fall in ... so it would appear nothing actually falls in but remains spinning arround forever or at least almost forever... because falling in one inch will increase your velocity incredibly higher than the previous velocity as we approach infinite gravity

[@a-blivvy-yus]

Thing is: We don't know enough about them just yet. The "spinning" idea is one of many attempts at modelling how black holes behave, not a definite "this is how they work" thing we can say for certain. Making it worse, is that it's considered a possibility which might not even apply to all black holes even if it's true. There are theories in which spinning and stationary black holes can coexist with different behaviours and thus different principles governing each type.

[@nathank7569]

Has anyone applied this to concept cosmological event horizons? I wonder if that would tell us something about dark energy.

[@shannonweymark2308]

This is probably my favorite video you've ever made 🙏

[@humanidrome]

This is truly mindblowing! Thank you for translating those results to us.

[@jajssblue]

Love this episode! I'm going to have to read that paper as everything mentioned (especially Renyi Entropy, GR path integral) are pathways I was exploring on my own as well! So cool that my amateur intuition might have been on to something.

[@Tom_Quixote]

Is it possible that black holes exist in the sense that they have enough gravity to trap light, BUT that they are not singularities? If some principle we don't know yet stops the collapse and so there would be a solid physical object inside the event horizon? Or has this definitively been ruled out?

[@GTRWelsh]

That's pretty expected afaik, it's just not what the math says.

[@HermanVonPetri]

I've had the same thoughts. Time dilation would suggest that, from our observer's perspective, there hasn't been enough time in the universe for the matter to reach the center yet. But black holes _do_ seem to exist as theorized, and I find those observations detailing their existence compelling. It would seem to me that enough matter compressed into a small enough space should be enough to form a black hole. I don't understand why we must assume that a singularity exists _right now._ Why not acknowledge that a singularity is the end point of an asymptote at some infinite time in the future? One that might never be reached. Obviously, there's something I'm missing, because that seems too obvious for cosmologists to not have thought of also.

[@Abluemoon9112]

@@GTRWelsh a singularity is when the math is no longer valid. It is like 1/X we know zero is real but 1/X is not valid at zero. The theory breaks down at that point and no one knows at this point.

[@Abluemoon9112]

@@HermanVonPetri this is issue with the theory. We know blackhole are real we just don't know what is inside one. A singularity is at the point where the math is no long valid. It is the same as Y=1/X. Y has a singularity at a point close to zero but can't be zero. We know zero is real. The math is not valid at zero.

[@Tom_Quixote]

Ok but if we know that our theories cannot explain what happens inside a black hole, why is it we are still talking about singularities as something real, with almost "magical" properties, instead of just a sign that we need a better theory? Black holes could have surfaces very similar to those of neutron stars, isn't that the most reasonable thing to assume at this point?

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Really interesting. Never heard of this before. This is why I stay subbed to PBS even though sometimes I find the explanations unclear

[@justinmercado808]

Love the new shirt design. Such a simple yet deeply meaningful design.

[@benplaster9943]

this is such a great episode. they're all awesome but this one was a 10/10 banger

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

I would think that all instances of Hawking radiation that are emitted by a black hole being entangled with each other follows from the Bekenstein bound: A black hole has the maximum possible entropy for a given area, and as you stated, in quantum mechanics, entropy is a measure of entanglement. This means that all of the contents of a black hole are maximally entangled, and since Hawking radiation creates a particle entangled with the interior of the black hole, also as you stated, that must mean all such particles are entangled with whatever else that part of the interior of the black hole is entangled with, which is all parts of the interior of the black hole and therefore also all other particles produced by Hawking radiation. How this can be described mathematically may be an open question, but it would seem that the principle itself should be well established.

[@Magus_Union]

One of the crazy theories I had when thinking about information and quantum physics, is the idea that the quantum field at the plank distance scale is nothing more than pure information. That is to say, that the quantum field does not express particles of the smallest function until enough information coalesces into an organizational structure to form a 'particle'. That could mean that information itself is the smallest function of reality, and it isn't until a certain level of organizational structure of that information is applied that the transition between quantum and classical begins to occur. I'm certainly no physicists, so I have no way to try to even prove said notion. But I do wonder if cosmic information is the truest nature of the quantum itself, hence the randomness of possibility that it often implies.

[@nth256]

So a singular "quanta" would be equivalent to a "bit" of computer information; and a certain number of quantum "bits" would add up to a "byte", etc. - is this similar to what you're thinking?

[@anywallsocket]

“fundamentality” is not a falsifiable concept

[@nemonomen3340]

I mean, you’re probably aware that the idea of the universe being made of information at its most fundamental level isn’t particularly new. But I’m also not sure what you’re really suggesting by the idea of information only forming particles after a certain threshold of organization is reached. What sort of explanation would one give for why the transition is made from information to physical representation?

[@MIKE_THE_BRUMMIE]

"Is potentiality something that is measured or do ideas have a tangible value. The universe at its beginning had the laws in place to allow for stars, black holes and people to form as in there was a blueprint at the moment of "creation" the potential existed and up till the fist time life knowingly put thought into practice all matter expressed itself unconsciously when we think of something completely novel is that thought something is it measurable as it can exist does it have a value is there a fabric to the universe that is ideas and blueprints" Love how you're thinking

[@isubtothebest6020]

@@anywallsocket what kind of education do you have? Most of the comments I’ve seen of yours is wrong

[@fugslayernominee1397]

Wow! this is really big. I remember watching Sean Caroll's podcast with Netta Engelhardt on black holes and holographic principle and wishing the day we'll see the information paradox get solved.

[@thomashenderson3901]

I don't always understand these topics but I always enjoy trying!

[@RifleAutoWin]

Is the virtual particle analogy correct? "The major problem with Hawking's explanation of his own theory is that he takes a calculational tool - the idea of virtual particles - and treats that tool as though it's equivalent to physical reality. In reality, what's happening is that the curved space around the black hole is constantly emitting radiation due to the curvature gradient around it, and that the energy is coming from the black hole itself, causing its event horizon to slowly shrink over time. Black holes are not decaying because there's an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that's another fantasy devised by Hawking to "save" his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region. Once enough time passes, and that duration is enormous for realistic black holes, they will have evaporated entirely."

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

When you quote something, it's helpful to provide a source. Actually, it's kind of obligatory to provide a source; otherwise it's called "plagiarism".

[@Shcroft2]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work. - Wikipedia

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

@@Shcroft2 Which is what occurs when you fail to provide a source. I'm not sure what you're getting at, there.

[@Shcroft2]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 that they did not attempt to pass the statement off as their own

[@lomiification]

Just got watch physics asylum's video on Hawkins radiation. The virtual particle explanation isn't right. The math may or may not be right. We've never observed anything to confirm or refute it

[@sephrinx4958]

I thought that "Virtual particles" weren't actually "real" and were just a tool for maths? Also, if the black hole sucks one of these virtual particles up, and the other is "ejected" as radiation, how does it lose mass, since it absorbed an entire virtual particle? I've never understood that.

[@cjp39]

Another question to confuse you: if electromagnetism is solely mediated by photons, how come after an electron emits a photon and it is absorbed by a proton, the two end up moving *towards* each other? One answer is that virtual photons can have negative momentum. But given you can't measure the properties of a virtual particle (by definition), that's kind of a fudge. The real particles move towards each other, ergo the virtual particle must have had negative momentum. Ultimately, the only "real" thing is the quantum field. Even "real" photons are merely stable excitations of this field (hence why they are indistinguishable). Both virtual and real photons are just a way to break down this incredibly complex object into ideas that we can comprehend and do math with. Hawking said in his original paper that the idea that black hole radiation was virtual pairs being created and one falling into the black hole was just a cute picture. The actual math is all about excluded frequencies in the EM field due to the event horizon. So if the cute picture doesn't quite make sense, we can handwave and say something like "one of the virtual particles has negative energy", or we can say "yeah, that doesn't make sense, because it's not really what's happening". (Another phenomenon that the cute picture doesn't seem to explain: why large black holes emit much less Hawking radiation than small ones.)

[@sephrinx4958]

@@cjp39 Crazy, nothing makes sense, and the more you learn about it the more confusing things get. Wonderful!

[@fluffysheap]

The last space I was this early, I hadn't even crossed the event horizon

[@idontwantahandlethough]

Ha

[@tomislavhoman4338]

Very underrated comment :)

[@MrAutore]

Thanks Matt for breaking this down for us!

[@elir7184]

Funny because I was thinking deeply about this like a week and a half ago. Pbs spacetime is very timely with these videos.

[@drexchem08]

Fascinating. I wonder if this is bad for string theory. 🤔 I do have a maybe silly question- if half of an entangled pair of particles falls into a black hole what if anything would change in the other and could we learn what happened to the doomed particle?

[@paulabbott6380]

The doomed particle is only a virtual particle when it goes over the event horizon so it doesn't really add anything to the black hole. The reason the Hawking radiation escapes is because the other particle becomes a real particle because the two didn't annihilate each other.

[@MichelleHell]

I've completely changed my understanding of black holes. Spacetime is stretchy and flexible, like a fluid. We know spacetime itself is made of quantum fields of virtual particles. So, why would it not be possible that spacetime itself can crystallize? If the quantum fields and virtual particles encounter such immense gravity, I would think spacetime itself is condensing into a solid phase. We know atoms and molecules pack into network solids, so why can't virtual particles pack into network solids? Infinite gravity and density, breakdown of laws of physics, etc. would happen under such a phase change. Spacetime is no longer stretchy and pliable, and is in the process of crystallizing the spacetime around it, like slowly growing a sugar crystal. So a black hole is a crystal of spacetime itself. You don't fall INTO a black hole, you get caked on the outside as a layer of densely packed spacetime. I know I think like a Chemist and not a physicist, but sometimes I feel like physicists discard principles of chemistry too often. If you ask a Chemist to ponder a black hole, they would probably think of spacetime packing into a network solid. And why not? Why can't space compact together into a brick of spacetime?

[@ashajacob8362]

You described Space Time like a physical objectt like matter but then you can't assume Space Time as a "fluid"

[@ashajacob8362]

It's good to see from a different perspective but we still don't know the exact nature of Space Time

[@frun]

Yes, there are papers considering spacetime to be a condensate. There is a paper comparing a black hole to a Bose-Einstein condensate.

[@MichelleHell]

@@frun that is so cool, I've heard of bose-Einstein condensate made with sodium-23. I guess that would mean they created a small black hole in a lab? My professor described the condensate as a super atom, which was a wild concept for me. A nucleus with electrons that aren't restricted by Pauli exclusion principle, making it a super atom with a cloud of free roaming electrons.

[@frun]

@@MichelleHell Yes, I saw a video here in KZbin in which Susskind described black hole as a material at the quantum critical point. The paper is by 4 people two of which are Nobel laureates. The black hole is called Dark energy star. I read a popsci article which mentions Kerr black holes/dark energy stars are donuts. It's interesting to note, that there are a lot of parallels between bose-einstein condensate and Dogon's creation myths. Universe/egg 'seeded' with vortexes, IMO.

[@RichMitch]

I don't know!

[@AutisticThinker]

1:33 - Maybe the black holes connect to the white hole singularity in the anti-universe 2:11 - or re-ordered (deceasing entropy) by releasing in to the anti-universe.

[@drfpslegend4149]

I read somewhere that there has been a direct correlation over history between breakthroughs in math and breakthroughs in physics. Maybe we're at a point in our history where physics seems to be at the limit of what it can study because the math it needs to make new breakthroughs doesn't exist yet, or hasn't been brought out of the mathematician's abstract universe. For instance, Newton (and Leibniz) had to invent calculus to study the motion of the planets. Maxwell was able to study electromagnetism because he was one of the few physicists who knew vector calculus. Einstein was successful with his theories of relativity because he was able to use the language of modern differential geometry as its framework. Hopefully the math that is being developed today to solve problems like the navier-stokes equations, the riemann hypothesis, and the langlands project will also be used by physicists to make new discoveries and solve hard physics inconsistencies like the information paradox in the years to come.

[@Yamaazaka]

Why is the conservation of quantum information non negotiable?

[@Patrick-zr8tv]

In order for the theory to be applicable, information conservation is required. Without it, the theory falls apart. That doesn't mean it's non negotiable _at all,_ but because quantum theory is so successful it is presumed that at least the major tenants are true to the universe and not just the theory.

[@SashaRomeroMusic]

Somehow, this idea seemed to make intuitive sense to me, based on my admittedly poor understanding of quantum mechanics. The idea that particles and therefore every system exists in a state of superposition of all possible states, seems to naturally extend itself to imagining that black holes exist in all possible states, especially considering their interior is completely unobservable. My question is, would this suggest that wormholes are indeed real in the sense that they tangibly affect black holes and the universe? Or is it just a mathematical trick?

[@hareecionelson5875]

Well, Lorentz transformations and 'quanta' were just mathematical tricks. Until they weren't.

[@HashCracker]

There are a lot of things mathematics can do that objective reality cannot. With time, most theories have to be refined or dismissed outright as our understanding or OBSERVATION of reality increases. Well at least thats what i read on a cereal box or something

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

It suggests they may be real. At least in terms that quantum entanglement itself may be joined as a particle pair through a wormhole. Larger groups of particles would result in larger wormholes. Entanglement may be wormholes ("ER=EPR" theory).

[@hareecionelson5875]

​@@HashCracker I'd go a step further and say that even the strangest maths is physically possible, even when intuition tells us that it should not be. We don't think the wormholes should exist, yet they must exist at least as an intermediate step between the problem and the solution. This is almost identical to the role of the square roots of negative numbers in solving cubic equations: Solvable cubics still yield the square roots of negatives using Cadano's method, but they cancel out to give the right answer, Whereas ignoring these negative roots implies that there is no solution (but there is)

[@gasdive]

This really is one of those "why didn't I see that!" moments. It just clicked, like watching Feynman explain adding up the the vector clocks of path integral. That makes so much sense! It really looks like this should unify QM and GR.

[@jimb4090]

This is sooooo cool! Imagine learning about black holes from something else that doesn't exist! Ever see one? Ever find one? Just one? Anybody?

[@chaadlosan]

My brain always melts listening to these.

[@shiveshpathak7095]

Hey Matt and PBS, thanks for the neat review! I’m a condensed matter physicist so having a place where I can casually dip my toes into GR and particle physics is so neat! I have one request for future videos, concerning ableist language. I think in physics we tend to be fast and loose with language like “crazy,” “dumb,” and “insane,” all words which are casually ableist terms. There’s no need to use this language, we are scientists, and we can use specific language to say what we want instead. I’ve been pushing for removing this kind of language during my Postdoc and did the same during my PhD a while back. So my request is if Matt, or whoever writes these scripts, could remove casual ableist language from future videos in this channel. Being a non neurotypical physicist myself, it hurts to hear that kind of language being thrown around in otherwise amazingly educational content. Physics is not for just able bodied and neurotypical people, and it’s not only developed by able bodied and neurotypical people. Thanks!

[@soqjos]

I wonder: Could these mathematically inspired wormholes possibly be connections to black holes within parallel universes of a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Either way, mind blown!

[@stanimirborov3765]

hmmm

[@Eagle3302PL]

many-worlds doesn't imply there are actual multiple physical universes in parallel, it's just a math trick to visualize probability by saying any and all probabilities are real and possible at the same time

[@mho...]

The whole "information Paradox" & theories like it, always seem to me like nothing more then bubbles that come up because of the math we use, based on our limited understanding!... cant wait for this one to pop, when we figure out whats really going on "out there"!

[@MalcolmCooks]

FACT. I have started to get a strong feeling that advanced physics doesn't actually describe physical reality. maybe pure mathematics and logic is actually not a perfect tool to explain reality - good enough for most things that we need to predict, but we have reached the point where its starting to break down

[@Omnicia17]

Thank you so much for these videos. Concise explanations, well-narrated, interesting topics, and useful visual aids.

[@davidtatro7457]

That's incredibly interesting, and thanks so much for explaining it in a way that we laypeople can somewhat grasp.

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

thanks for your persistence each detail