Real Physics Talk: Wolfgang Kundt, do Black Holes Exist?

[@TheDummbob]

Great content, very important! To me as a physics student approaching the masters degree, the end is the hardest pill to swallow: that young, "new" physicists are not allowed to be sceptical of popular concepts. That's not how I envision scientific sceptiscism

[@harshkumarf4379]

of course you can be sceptical of popular concepts but have some substance in your thoughts ,,

[@TheDummbob]

@@AlbertZiegler069 What do you mean? If you mean that they are wrong in this sciological aspect of the science community, then I have to say that one learns absolutely nothing about the sociology and the philosophy of science in the physics degree, so it has nothing to do with the fact that "I am so far" in my degree. (although I would believe that effects like these mentioned in the video exists, because it is part of science to defend the current paradigms, and it is part of science that these paradigms that have been defended so long, at some point start to dissolve and new paradigms are formed, like stated by Kuhn in his book about the revolutions of sciences. So this would be nothing new to science, to the contrary, it is a recurring phenomenon and totally part of the scientific process) If you are talking about the theoretical aspect ("they are wrong about black holes"), then I have to say that I haven't had a lecture that discusses astrophysical jets and the likes, and I believe stuff like that goes beyond what one learns in a masters degree, atleast there doesn't seem to be lectures about that at my university (which is neither a bad nor small one) So in a sense I have to trust one of the two sides, it has nothing to do with understanding because it is beyond my knowledge

[@MrWolynski]

Maybe. Until you question the very essence of even our childhood educations. For instance we are trained to believe there are "stars" and "planets". The vast majority do not realize they are the same. The stars are young planets, and planets are older and dead stars/stellar remains. So much for astrophysics! It just went down the tubes because of a major false assumption!

[@jonathanhockey9943]

This all comes from the separation of physics from natural philosophy, to get a full perspective you will probably need to study deeply the history of how physics has developed and its historical ties with philosophy and ontology. An important era in particular that explains our current dogmatism was the era of positivism in the early 20th century, a dubious, and soon shown incorrect philosophy that even Einstein succumbed to at times. To this day, if you read a popular science book, they will parrot the positivist playbook almost 100%, because this incorrect dogmatic ontology has become deeply ingrained in their collective psyche.

[@Chris.Davies]

That's because a lot pf physics has more in common with religion, that science.

[@YC-ls4yx]

Prof. Wolfgang is so passionate he makes me smile

[@PhysicsNative]

Hi Alexander, I want to thank you for interviewing Kundt, I gathered and read several of his many papers and encourage others to do so, many are on ResearchGate. I have a couple comments. First, I think someone (perhaps a postdoc or grad student) with heavy exposure to nuclear/plasma physics, nonlinear dynamics, nonequilibrium SM needs to produce a consistent, comprehensive numerical model from Kundt’s BD theory, complete with all of his assumptions, which are scattered across several papers. He and Krishna have a 2004 paper describing this model, with some stability calculations, but some have still questioned whether his model can produce the radio jets that are observed, say for our galactic center, assuming Sgr A* is a BD and not a SMBH. I’m still trying to get a handle on whether his model (Fig. 2 of the 2004 paper) is realistic. A numerical model with key dynamics that shows predictions of observed large scale jet and magnetic field structures would be convincing. Otherwise this remains speculative and explains why others have ignored it. Indeed, the SMBH-accretion disk models are equally speculative, but years have gone into detailed models, right or wrong. In particular the assumptions that SMBHs blow radiation and matter can be argued as incorrect but it is now a major assumption built into these models. The simple arguments made regarding tidal forces alone as applied to SMBHs invalidates their existence but somehow that is ignored too. Nevertheless, a detailed numerical model of Kundt BD, jet structures, magnetic funnels needs to be made with an improved graphic of all of these dynamic processes. I can try my hand at the latter, but the former is quite a (albeit necessary) undertaking if this theory is to challenge and dislodge the “church” of SMBH-AD.

[@BlueGiant69202]

This is a REAL PHYSICS video! Thank you Dr. Unzicker for creating and sharing this video. It's good to see and hear that there are iconoclasts with alternative views in the physics community.

[@Fi0raVanTi97]

I wish you ll have more visibility!! So interesting, so necessary

[@0ned]

We need a certified fraud examiner to answer the real questions about the black hole racket, but you guys are cool. Thanks for playing!

[@donaldkasper8346]

Professors like this are usually retired before they say that a certain physics model is f-ll of sh-t, which doesn't take much courage or intellectual prowess.

[@thewetcoast]

Actually, the claim that black holes exist is a very strong and unusual claim arising out of a "math first, observe later" modus operandi, considering primarily the weak force of gravity in its models.

[@thomvogan3397]

The most difficult blocks to remove from the path of scientific progress are ego, dogma and cowardice. They are the constants never factored into equations

[@PaulMarostica]

I've never been able to accept the assumption that matter attracted into a black hole is attracted into 1 infinitesimal size central point. To me, this implies a black hole's central point has infinite density, which has always seemed to me to be physically illogical. So I've always assumed black holes are fantasy physics theory objects, and I've more or less tried to ignore them. Until I viewed this video, I had not learned there was an alternative to the assumption of black holes. Wolfgang Kundt's assumption of neutron stars with accretion discs is far more physically logical, and is resultantly much more interesting to me. Thank you both for this.

[@markbarber7839]

Thanks for the interview. Imagine living in a time where one has to qualify or apologize for an opposing scientific view

[@ScottMana]

We are already there. Science is sold to the highest bidder now days. Just look how never before in Human history did masks save the day in a pandemic. Dozens of papers denouncing masks as having any benefit including the defacto paper titled "N95 vs surgical masks..." that spent over a decade and a few twerps in a week over turn it without any testing. Sure enough, when masks are used, no effect on the pandemic, but somehow, it's science and saving lives....

[@nagualdesign]

All scientific views have to be qualified, by definition. Of course an opposing view requires evidence. Imagine living in a time when evidence _wasn't_ required to qualify a scientific view.

[@apolloniuspergus9295]

@@nagualdesign Of course, you have to be qualified in the sense that you understand and have studied the subject. But he was talking about formal qualification, such as having to notify people that the person has at least a PhD.

[@nagualdesign]

@@apolloniuspergus9295 I wasn't talking about being qualified, as in having some sort of qualification, I was talking about qualifying a scientific viewpoint, as in putting forth evidence that can be refuted or disproved. You don't need to have a PhD.

[@apolloniuspergus9295]

@@nagualdesign I know. I explained to you that the other guy meant something else.

[@dehilster]

Thanks for covering both sides of this debate! Bravo!!

[@Mumon010]

Thank you Dr. Unzicker, very appreciative of these type of discussions that allow the interested lay person some understanding of these arguments.

[@runs_through_the_forest]

please Dr. Unzicker could you maybe ask someone who works in sounddesign to clean up this audio, i'm sure you can find someone who will do it for free. then just upload again under same name + (better audio quality)? i have listened to this video twice because it's interesting and enjoyed the conversation very much, but many people who i recommend this very good edition of real physics talks to, find it a bit to grainy and noisy to endure.. thanks! edit: if you want i can ask a friend but only with your permission of course, then i could send it to you or upload it myself, however you prefer. kind regards

[@shawns0762]

Black hole theory is based on a mathematical misconception. For some reason people don't know that Einstein repeatedly said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzchild singularities" (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzchild singularities" do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." This phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. 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 common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know this through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions, the same way we could calculate the surface velocity of the sun if we doubled it's mass. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us because as the graph shows we are still connected to it. The greatest mystery in science is the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact. A simple way to confirm this would be to calculate the star rotation rates of a large number of galaxies. This would show that all the high mass galaxies would have star rotation rates that defy the known laws of physics and all the low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) would have normal star rotation rates. Black holes were popularized mostly by television in the 1960's and belief in them gradually came to be despite the fact that Einstein said they cannot exist and there was no evidence. The idea that there is some way to take a picture of the galactic center is insane. As per relativity, an observer would have to exist at or near it's momentum. If you pose the question "why can't we see light from the galactic center?" the modern answer would be because gravitational forces there are so strong that not even light can escape (even though the mass of the photon is 0). Einstein's answer would be because the mass there is dilated relative to an Earth bound observer. Einstein's answer explains the greatest mystery in science. We all learned that mass becomes infinite at the speed of light in high school and this means that singularities cannot exist.

[@magaman2442]

@@shawns0762 we have a picture of it.

[@shawns0762]

@magaman2442 There is no way to take a "picture" of the galactic center. The interference alone, dilation alone or gravitational lensing alone would make that virtually impossible. There is a picture because people are getting paid to come up with a picture. It would be dark from an Earthbound observers point of view because of the phenomenon of dilation. Since I wrote my comment more very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052- DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to have no dark matter. This is proof that dark matter is dilated mass, there can be no other realistic explanation. This can be inferred mathematically as well.

[@kikufutaba524]

Wonderful interview and a sad glimpse at big science. It should never be about money but the truth.

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

As time passed by we came from static universe of Einstein to expanding universe of Hubble. And now as time passes by we need to see whether blackhole is real object or else object of imagination.

[@paaao]

Todays scientists are not scientists at all. They are mathematicians. "They can think deeply, but not clearly" -Tesla

[@CharlesOffdensen]

If they are mathematicians, why do they constantly divide by zero (as in black hole singularities). The nonsense is apparent not just in the lack of experiments.

[@harshkumarf4379]

its mostly the pseudo scientist who think way ,, they can think "deeply" but have no substance in those thoughts ,,

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

Very nice discussion. Have you talked about the gravitational waves "discovery" yet? The original PRL paper has a weird logic to it aside from the fact that the most important figure in the paper was made-up and not mentioned as such in the corresponding caption.

[@donaldkasper8346]

I understand the main figure was a simulation, and not real, most likely because the socalled signal was a graph of white noise.

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

@Donald Kasper New Scientist published an article on it in 2017. The authors themselves said that the signal of the main figure, which was showcased on all media under the Sun as actual data comparison with theory, was more made "by hand" to "aid the eye" understand what they found. The problem is that it is mentioned nowhere in the article.

[@trailedge]

Those dummies detected the ocean.

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

@@trailedge I am happy to contemplate this possibility. Would you have any reading suggestions putting forward this idea?

[@kikufutaba1194]

To question things is science to allow anyone or any body of people to diminish a scientist who does is nothing but a religion. Thank you for posting it is a wonderful channel you have Dr. Unzicker.

[@TheTwick]

This is wonderful. Thank you for this. I wish your audio quality was a little better, thou.

[@TheMachian]

Any specific suggestions?

[@joonasmakinen4807]

@@TheMachian, have you tried condensed stand microphones like Blue Yeti (150e) or Blue Yeti Nano (100e)? Their sound quality is very good. They have few sound capturing modes like omnidirectional (for multiple persons), bidirectional (for interviews) and cardioid (for alone). They can be used on a table (if the table is not punched like in the video :D). But if you can invest little more, then you can reduce vibration sensitivity by getting Blue Yeticaster: www.amazon.de/Blue-Yeticaster-Professionelles-Broadcast-Paketbestehend-Compass/dp/B078MHS3SC EDIT: My wife owns Blue Yeti Nano and it has been really good so far.

[@dreamdiction]

@@TheMachian They are wearing microphones but the sound is coming from the camera mic, that's why we can hear so much room reverberation.

[@astrazenica7783]

such clear honesty

[@curiousmind9287]

Math is simply a language. One can lie in math just as easy as by spoken word.

[@ebrelus7687]

More like math is a tool with each own limitations like any other tool.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

True as fuck. Most people get stuck in abstract maths. Mathemagics.

[@harshkumarf4379]

absolutely not ,, one can lie in any language and get away with it but not in maths ,,,

[@matthewsheeran]

Even worse: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics!" ;-)

[@numbynumb]

Why is he talking about how galaxies behave on the scale of millions and billions of years? No one has ever seen anything being ejected from the center of a galaxy. How is he convincing himself that he's perceived this clearly enough to state it as if he were an eye witness?

[@rayfleming2053]

Thanks for the video. I agree with many of his ideas. Have you worked on black hole physics in variable speed of light GR? That is on my to-do list. My first impressions are that you still end up with a neutron star with an accretion disc.

[@LukeAquilina]

His explanation of the extra energy turning into angular momentum instead of an infinite density was intriguing. Do you think its possible this extra energy is transmuted into the quantum field and causes the surrounding space to have a preferred rotation relative to the spin of the disk? The immense energy at the center of the galaxy creates a galaxy sized quantum dipole that rotates with respect to the energy present?

[@rayfleming2053]

@@LukeAquilina All energy is quantum field energy of one kind or another. I think that once a neutron star gets an event horizon new matter accumulates at the event horizon, which eventually grows past the matter. The added particle mass is still there, but its momentum is going to change the linear momentum of the black hole or cause it to have increased angular momentum depending on its direction at impact with the event horizon. I don't think a black hole turns into a quantum dipole, but contains a nearly infinite number of quantum fluctuations.

[@williamlavallee8916]

Brings back my wonder of physics to listen to his passionate discourse. Possibly one of those physicists who's legacy will eventually have to be recognized with some embarrassment.

[@zhenjiu]

Please consider this topic, if it has not been covered already: how can a neutron 'star' exist when single neutrons decay in less than 20 minutes?

[@TheMachian]

The lifetime of a neutron refers only to the single-particle state; in deuterium, the "neutron" never decays. Of course, a neutron star is a "atomic nucleus" of remarkable size, but I would not see a problem in first place here. Of course, as I mention elsewhere, the fundamental principles of nuclear physics are anything but well understood.

[@zhenjiu]

@@TheMachian Thank you!

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

So if at the centre of galaxy there is no blackhole then what happens to a massive star which is far away from centre after it runs out of it's fuel?

[@HK1505W]

Comments on contemporary physicists such as Susskind, Carrol , Smolin 't Hooft and others who adhere to mainstream Black Hole theories would be most interesting in the light of Dr. Kundt views. Look forward to them.

[@TheMachian]

Not everyone is worth mentioning. I have to focus on physics.

[@abeautifulmindispoetrydefi5323]

I forgot to add that black holes could be unidirectional and white holes were simply the opposite, so that one went one way and the other brought you back. As I say it is just a theory and it's at an early stage, but there could be a lot of truth to it. The same with Portals, are they just bound to being a fast track across a universe, and is only effective on that one plane? Star Gates' work completely differently, as they are effectively the Star - stations on the Star Map, again bear in mind when you look at a two dimensional map of lets say the London Underground, and you want to go from one side to the other or top to bottom, you have to choose a course, to allow you to get there. With a Star Gate, it's literally door to door. Time is the one aspect which cannot be linear. So we have a problem at that point, then the other problem that occurs is if we visit that location we are adding a new time line, as we should have never been there. Then that causes other issues that goes beyond the realms of our own thinking and understanding. What we haven't learn is how to erase a time line in order to stabilise "The so called Time Line" This is where the theoretical, becomes insanely complicated. The U.S. Navy had the same problem with the "Philidelphia Experiment" and we only know of 2 experiments that were run at the time.

[@Strutingeagle]

Wolfgang has my vote for being right, by god!!!

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

Black holes don't exist the way that Einstein described them, but sort of exist by fixing some of the physics that he used. The bending of spacetime is actually the scaling of gravity towards points, and time is the area of least resistance. Gravity then flows out again once scaled down. So not really the same exactly.

[@User53123]

Did you watch Alexander Tchechovskoys video about the accretion disk causing a disconnect between the north and south of the black hole releasing the electromagnetism?

[@roygbiv176]

I have been harassing my peers telling them black holes don't exist based on a very simple paradox for years now lol.

[@RobertsMrtn]

Me too! Please contact me.

[@roygbiv176]

@@RobertsMrtn how can I contact you?

[@roygbiv176]

@@RobertsMrtn Ive sent you an email, check your junk if you didnt recieve one.

[@que3no085]

What ? What paradox ?

[@que3no085]

Like we have even photos of Black hole

[@guytech7310]

Some thoughts: 1. Is there a limit of mass of neutron stars preventing them from radio emissions, but have escape velocities below but near the speed of light? My thought is that if there are neutron stars that have mass nearing the escape velocity of the speed of light & still produce radio emissions, and observe objects with escape velocities greater the the speed of light we could use that quantify if black holes exist. if radio emissions can escape from masses with escape velocities greater than c, you have a way to prove this hypothesis. 2. If we look at particle physics and look at high energy particle collisions there is at least some evidence that neutrons can be collapsed (broke apart). If I recall correctly, a neutron binding energy is about 1 GeV, so if you calculate the mass size such that the force applied exceeds 1 GeV, its probable that neutrons collapse. Perhaps very massive objects (aka black holes) do not collapse into a singlarity (ie 1 dimensional), but perhaps a considerable smaller size, Perhaps collapsing from about a 10Km diameter into a 10m diameter when the gravitation force exceed the neutrons binding force. 3. There may be a saturation point in which more mass does not increase gravitation forces, which would limit the compression forces acting on a high-mass object. Thus an object cannot be compressed into a single dimensional space, but this may not prevent an object from having a schwarzschild radius, which no mass or light can escape from. My current thought is that gravity is a derivative of the strong interaction, which could be a decay of the strong interaction when it exceeds is distance been subatomic particle lengths. if this is the case than there likely is a limit that would prevent a black hole from collapsing smaller than that the size of quark-soup. However if gravity is generated from the organization of neutrons & protons, than its likely that high mass objects cannot collapse below the size of their neutrons. What has me, is that the strong interaction & gravity break conservation of energy law, since no energy input is required to generate the strong interaction force or gravity, just mass. Gravity can accelerate object between each other with no energy input & the strong interaction force can bind neutrons & protons with no energy inputs either. That's leading me to think gravity and the strong interaction force are closely related, and may not be true separate forces.

[@TheMachian]

I try short answers: 1. I dont know. We just don't know the leas of physics that govern such extreme staes of matter. I think thi is the only honset answer. 2. particle colliders cannot produce such high densities, thus there is little to learn from such experiments in this respect. 3. Again, nobody knows. I do not think that the concept of a strong interaction makes sense. Probably, true understanding would unify the two forces (elnag and gravity) rather than postulate new ones. Thus, I agree with your suggestion here.

[@numbynumb]

Einstein wrote a paper in 1939 explaining exactly why black holes can't exist. And, in his final analysis, it's for the most obvious of reasons - that one "cannot concentrate matter arbitrarily".

[@CandideSchmyles]

The biggest problem I percieve is that the Universities starting in the US became commercial enterprises first and foremost.

[@abeautifulmindispoetrydefi5323]

I have a theory that explains in simplistic terms the purpose of both "Black Holes and White Holes", and for me it makes every sense. The film "Interstellar" is what inspired and made me realise that perhaps we were looking at this all wrong. Which again challenged mainstream thinking. If you imagine place 2 reams of paper on top of each other effectively you have 1000 sheets of paper and between each sheet of paper you had a space in which an ant could squeeze into. If every sheet of paper represented a universe, and on every sheet were a number of black holes and white holes, dotted around on it and then the sheet beneath that sheet represented another universe again with black holes and white holes effective what you have is a 1000 layered transport system, which does not work in the conventional way our minds would think it should work. However it would mean in that in a cross-sectional view of a cube we could look at a transport system that allows you to randomly move between universes both forward and backwards without any effect. Perhaps a better way is to use an analogy of a lift going up or down, or if it's easier and escalator that allows you to move between universes. The human mind could represent the ant, that wants to travel across the vastness of the multi verse, so what is stopping us, after all it's not our imagination. As that is working perfectly well. If anything it might be our belief that we can travel to literally anywhere in the known/unknown universe. That is real freedom and the true understanding of us being able to move around in this situation. The same way that Ingo Swann could look at the rings of Saturn it could be that you could actually transport yourself there too. Who knows this could have been the lost art that we had been use to right at the beginning of time.

[@ohnamopar]

I would be interested in Kundt's opinion of Nassim Haramein's work which is based around the idea of black holes and has proven accurate in predictions such as the muon radius.

[@prasannapaithankar7051]

Sir please make a video on books you have

[@oakhillclassroom4827]

Bless those Men upholding TRUTH

[@daemonnice]

It doesn't matter to me what the math says if the premise to begin with is preposterous, and GR as a mechanism is a preposterous premise as neither space nor time have physical properties. It was born of relative ignorance and incorrect assumptions, and as such, statistically is likely to be wrong. As for Neutron Stars and speculations of deep space objects, its all just meaningless speculation since this force gravity which is given so much importance is still an unknown. GR functions great as a metric, but it is not a mechanism. It is just guessing, as Feynman would say, though based on a paradigm whose initial premise requires a leap of faith, that space and time have physical properties that we cannot directly observe, its like a "dark" fabric, which has brought forth dark matter and dark energy, more unknowns. In fact, it seems to me this paradigm has born forth more unknowables than knowables. Math does not prove the veracity of a model, but, through in situ measurements can prove the usability of the model. With GR, there is no way of testing the model, not that it is needed as its initial premise is beyond reason. In my opinion, the present day cosmological model is a faith based belief.

[@paultan5419]

And what backs these claims of yours?

[@daemonnice]

@@paultan5419 Observation and logic. Every postulate of Einstein's regarding space was proven thoroughly incorrect a decade after Einstein passed away. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that space and time do have physical properties and accepting GR, requires a leap of faith in accepting space and time(two concepts not things) have physical properties. The properties of any space is dependent upon what occupies that space. Time equals change and everything and everyone experiences it differently. What occupies space more than anything is plasma and within that plasma there are electromagnetic structures. Again, Einstein was ignorant of this. Not his fault, so were most of his peers, the exception being Kristian Birkeland. The one thing I have learned in my 6 decades is that generally whatever the media shoves down your throat is manipulative propaganda, and it was the media that promoted these particular models of Einstein. Did you know he had a variable light speed model too? Check out Professor Unzicker's book, "Einstein's Lost Keys", where he talks about some of Einstein's other models. You can also check him on youtube. Paradigm shifts do not come from those who accept the present standard model, but from those open to possibilities. A mantra of mine is to Consider everything, believe nothing, accept that which works till something better comes along. I laugh at people who say they believe in science, as generally with a few questions, one can determine what they are really saying is, I believe in the authority of the standard model of science which I have no idea of. This is one aspect of scientism. It is the sceptics that are the true servants of the progress of science. As Max Planck said, "For new scientific truths to take hold, old scientist have to die off".

[@paultan5419]

​@@daemonnice Firstly, Physics is spoken in the language of maths, so statements such as "Time equals change" and the "Properties of any space is dependent on what occupies that space" do not hold up as logical arguments or observations. If Einstein's general relativitistic representation of space has been disproven i would love more details on this. Much of what you are saying about scepticism and such I agree with, but my opinion is that we are not in a position to join the debate. In fact, I am studying physics so that I can eventually join the discussion, right now I am in no position to blindly follow the arguments of a youtuber, even if he is persuasive. Simply because I dont understand the langauge they are speaking, yet.

[@daemonnice]

@@paultan5419 ", Physics is spoken in the language of maths, so statements such as "Time equals change" and the "Properties of any space is dependent on what occupies that space" do not hold up as logical arguments or observations. ~ Math is an abstraction, it is a tool by which physicists use to quantify their observations. And if you cannot break the math down into plain language, you rare probably dealing with nonsense. "Properties of any space is dependent upon what occupies it." is a totally logical argument and holds up to observations. Where have you been? Space is not how Einstein postulated for his GR, but it is as Birkeland said, though he was refuted in his day. Read Einstein's GR paper and look up the history of discovery since he died. The solar system is electrically alive, it is a plasma populated with electromagnetics structures, all of this refutes Einstein. The unfortunate part is, the GR dogmatists in charge neutralized that electric potential to keep GR valid. The solar wind is charged particles with a supersonic velocity and thus is a plasma. Something the general consensus in Einstein's day was ignorant of(except Birkeland). Are you studying physics, or a paradigm of physics? Anyone, regardless of their education, to their own limited ability should have their OWN thoughts on the matter. I am a self educated life long learner, a high school dropout even and I do not acquiesce to any alleged expert or authority. I consider myself a Natural Philosopher, much like many of the great minds whose shoulders we now stand on. Yes, I struggle with the math, but, the math, unless based on observations is highly questionable. When Copernicus, stated the earth orbited the sun, did he have the math? No. It took Kepler decades using Brahe's lifelong observations of the heavens. So, my "postulates" are not, as you say, but, they are in need of further observations and measurements. They are certainly open to question and criticism and discussion. I also would not attempt to dismiss the degree to which Professor Unzicker is qualified to talk on such subjects just because he is on youtube. This kind of argument is baseless. Is everything on youtube shit? Noo, it isn't. This is a facile statement. If you are not ready to question and criticize the standard model, you are not doing science, you are doing religion.

[@paultan5419]

@@daemonnice You speak well and convincingly. You should note that I don't believe in the standard model in a way that could be related to faith in a religion . I neither believe it fully, or refute it. I believe that one should not criticize something without understanding it. It follows that to understand the standard model, you need to develop a rich understanding of some really advanced physics, which is what I hope to do. Frankly your comments that I am doing religion not science is unfounded. Your statement about maths is not true in all circumstances too, the reality is that a lot of high level physics formalisms can only be explained to a certain extent in plain English. The richness of the theory is in the maths. A very basic example is Schrodinger's equation , and his formulation of quantum mechanics, I could explain a general overview of the theory, but I could not hope to put into English the richness of the theory , no matter how well anyone understands it. Same with general relativity , curved space time sounds nice and all, but try explaining all the tensor analysis and topolgy which I think, is the meat of the theory. My broad point is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these theories. I agree also thag we shouldn't be too quick to believe in them either ! I certainly don't take it as absoulte truth, and the reality is that no good scientist ever takes a theory as truth. There in the same way that we do not take them to be absolute truth, we should avoid also judging them as absoulte failures. Especially when we cannot even hope to read and understand the academic papers ourself!

[@trescatorce9497]

i always had problems with the "singularity" at the center of a black hole= infinite mass with zero volume, a mathematical impossibility. Then again, if accretion disks spin at a sizable fraction of c, the forces acting on this fast rotating plasma will emit bremsstrahlung, in the RADIAL direction, not in the AXIAL direction, and there should be a broad spread of wavelengths in the spectral data observed here, since the emitted light comes from different points in the accretion disk. This should also happen in black holes. Conservation of angular momentum will make the center of the "object" spin even faster, to the point that the centripetal force could overcome gravity and the sphere will flatten into a disk (this only applies to neutron stars). Assuming (poor choice of words) that a neutron star is made of neutrons (what else?) the force of gravity has a gradient across the thickness of the disk as opposed to the radial direction. Thus, the weak force will be stronger than gravity across both disk surfaces, generating protons and electrons, plus about 0.75 MeV photons being emitted, now, in the AXIAL direction. There could be an oscillation in the accretion plane, due to the fact that the spinning plasma loses energy by bremsstrahlung, thus is attracted to the CG, where it spins faster, and so on.

[@inxiti]

It's a mathematical possibility, and a physical impossibility. You conflated the two within your first statement.

[@adibmohareri1223]

Well, Im not a physicist, but somehow this idea was always obvious to me that black holes are actually neutron stars in a sligthly different situation! I'm kind of surprised to realize the physics community has always thought otherwise!!

[@samadams6487]

Well that business about the galaxies having an input and an output sounds like it could be analogous to kirchhoff's current law except applied to matter going in and out of galaxies.

[@footprints2324]

Best wishes Sir.

[@TheMachian]

If you want to defend something to which applies Pauli's joke by joking like Pauli, retry. I guess I am right.

[@Sandsteine]

Sehr unterhaltsam

[@bokistotel]

Seems like a great talk, but audio is sometimes incomprehensible. There is a lot echo in the room, I am not a sound engineer, but I think the microphones should be placed closer to the mouth or get a better mics.

[@ebrelus7687]

Does every galaxy have this kind of dark condensing body in its center?

[@TheMachian]

Seems to be typical, yes. If we knwo what it is, exactly :-)

[@MatthewSuffidy]

I would hate to mention it, but it is possible that both dark neutron stars and literal black holes may exist. I think maybe the idea of black hole, supernova, and dark neutron star may be about the same thing with some different geometric scenarios. By definition a black hole is a point of mass of a density that the light around it can not come out at you. I personally think there is in fact matter in there, a not just momentum or something.

[@greggstrasser5791]

Nah.

[@Simonjose7258]

But how does he know that a neutron star is real?

[@Dragrath1]

Because we see a large number of observations which suggest a Neutron star or something equivalently dense and compact objects exist with extreme magnetic fields and high mass. The neutrino spike during the collapse of SN1987 in the LMC also supports that electron capture is occurring. There is evidence that they can't be purely stabilized by neutron degeneracy so the situation is more complicated the general assumption these days being that the strong force is helping to stabilize them but this is indeed only a model since we lack a full understanding of the strong nuclear force. Still I don't see how you can argue around there being something small, you can doubt the instrumentation but that argument logic sends you down a philosophical rabbit hole that can be extended all the way until you are denying all observations. If his nuclear disk hypothesis is true then there should be fusion reactions which produce decay products to be observed as any object where the escape velocity hasn't exceeded the speed of light should be visible. We haven't observed these reactions. He argues that other material is blocking this but that argument seems problematic as any blocking matter would also need to emit radiation so the object should appear highly luminous unless it violates the laws of thermodynamics. We don't see that I still don't get how he gets around the observation of the photon sphere (I.e. light getting bent around the invisible dark object from the accretion disk) if it isn't a photon sphere what does he think it is? Does he doubt the scale of the image? Its a misconception that the image is an accretion disk at least under the standard GR interpretation, without him making some theoretical model which makes testable predictions his argument is untestable and thus falls outside of science. Any data can necessarily be fit to any model as a consequence of infinite series expansions with a sufficient number of terms his scenario depends on more assumptions and or work arounds that are hard to justify. One thing worth pointing out is that one can argue in the standard picture that a conventional GR black hole has already been ruled out at least on quantum mechanical ground and in approximation of most black hole scenarios as after the event horizon forms objects would slow down in time to a crawl meaning that they don't ever reach the center. How does he propose to change GR such that the curvature doesn't cut off all associations? A black hole has never been a real object its an empty scar in space in convention a region where the curvature has disconnected space an alternative would need to change the formalism of the metric tensor in the limit of large curvature. Without something like that the result would be indistinguishable from GR black holes. While we haven't observed a true spatial hawking radiation we can make analogous systems and test those in the lab and thus far they all strongly support the existence of hawking radiation

[@dosomething3]

great content. audio needs fix.

[@MGTOW-nn9ls]

Excellent interview

[@loochunboon1615]

Great discussion, really enjoyed it. If I may suggest, perhaps it's more helpful if the discussion had been carried out in German with subtitles in English...

[@TheMachian]

I know we are not perfect, but that was hard to realize...

[@NoahSpurrier]

Shouldn’t neutron star mergers be a possible way to form a black hole? I understood Dr. Kundt’s objection to ordinary matter falling into an accretion disc around a neutron star, but is that argument applicable to two neutron stars? Even if their orbits approached the speed of light they would bleed off angular momentum in tidal forces and/or gravitational waves and slowly move closer until they merge. Isn’t this what LIGO detected? I also agree that the Event Horizon images are not totally convincing due to the reconstruction technique used, but LIGO’s data is pretty transparent.

[@wokefurby2497]

Silly to downvote this. There's a big difference between a video you disagree with and a video that is poor content.

[@NoahSpurrier]

Is it not possible to form an event horizon around a dense object without it necessarily leading towards a singularity? I think Penrose showed that an event horizon must result in a singularity. Singularities suck.

[@LGcommaI]

Relevant context (this is not an endorsement, only relevant context; I did not look into the matter carefully): kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHzQqYmBfrOebqM

[@nickst2797]

Is content about the potential nonexistence of black holes covered in some of your books? If yes, which book is it?

[@TheMachian]

Some doubts are colleted in subchapters of "Bankrupting physics", also "Auf dem Holzweg durchs Universum" (German only) contains material.

[@nickst2797]

@@TheMachian Thank you very much!

[@eduardopupucon]

how do you explain the isolate black hole found by transit of a background star

[@danielmesnage1985]

The false premise is that gravity is the only force at work. All bodies are charged masses, and thus are subject to the electromagnetic force. Galaxies display polar "jets". These are flows of plasma (ionised matter) - i.e. electric currents - and the plasma flows join galaxies. Charged bodies rotate around a current path. Think of a galaxy as a giant homopolar motor. This is basic ED. Since the EM force is very strong compared to very weak gravity, you no longer need to invent physically impossible super dense point sources to explain the motion of bodies around the centre of galaxies.

[@eduardopupucon]

@@danielmesnage1985 that's a non answer

[@gio.k291]

How can massless particles like photons experience gravitational pull?

[@ChechenScienceAcademy0204]

Moreover, so-called photons aren't particles at all. They need them to be particles because otherwise, it's guiding to inconsistency with a current standard model. It's just a fig leaf they need, nothing more.

[@XpnLef]

Not a physicist but in general relativity, isn’t gravity not a force but the result of the deformation of the geometry of space ? Just asking let me know if am wrong.

[@ChechenScienceAcademy0204]

@@XpnLef how space can deform? Can you imagine it? Give it a sense of reality? A unicorn horn is deformed? Although unicorns don't exist we can imagine them. Because horns are objects. On the contrary under space, we understand something to be filled with other things. Space is a concept, it's like love or hate. An abstraction. It needs to be filled with something to have a sense of existence. How do we know it? There are two perfect instruments to chek any theories or hypotheses for validity. The first called Occum's Razor. The second is "Popper's Criteria". First demands simplicity. The simplest explanation most chances to be true. The second shows us what is science and what can not be considered as such. Popper's Criteria says that any scientific theory or suggestion has to be testable as a right or wrong. We can not test "curves of space" to be wrong or even describe them. Because they aren't objects of science. We can not imagine that. It's some bullshit from some old nerds. I can imagine hoblins. I know how these fantasy beings look. So the "curved space" is a much deeper fantasy thing then hoblins or unicorns.

[@XpnLef]

NEVER EVER hey, you are demonstrably wrong. The curving of space have a few supporting result : the best known of which is arguably gravitational lensing or more recently the ligo interferometer. Moreover it is definetly falsifiable. I suggest you educate yourself on the matter before dismissing so confidently.

[@curiousmind9287]

XpnLef gravitational lensing has alternative explanations for bending the light

[@WorksopGimp]

What happens to a black hole when it fills up

[@TheDummbob]

Nice, very nice!

[@mlmimichaellucasmontereyin6765]

Dear Dr.'s - My fairly extensive R&D of ideas emerging as the Einsteinian new-wave & then the post-Einsteinian mathification of science led to seeing that plasma physics & plasma cosmology offered the best platform for developing a corrective quantum fluid dynamics (QFD) + macro-field quantum fluid mechanics (MQFM). That enables interpreting the weird and/or anomalous phenomena of current SM astronomy & astrophysics as magneto-dielectric field-effects. In other words, a high-energy galaxy's center is an axial complex of hyper-energized vortices, empowered by all the radiant energy (pressure, etc.) of all the stars, galaxies, plasma & hyper-plasma flows surrounding & sustaining it. Clearly, realistic post-modern SM theory & metatheory of science may eliminate the 'need' for 'neutron stars' and all other notional 'objects' of obsolete SM & QM 'cosmology'.

[@donaldkasper8346]

My understanding is the rotational rate of a pulsar is so fast, it would blow apart, so they came up with this concoction to patch it that it is a super dense object of neutrons, which may mathematically work for them. But neutrons are unstable and decay into other things quickly. Then there is this inability to consider that it is an electric object that has a periodicity of discharging and does not spin at all, also solves the issue and much more simply without fantastical explanations like quadrillion ton piles of solid neutrons suddenly being all stable. But really, come on, spinning at 30,000 rpm is called a sane explanation? Okay, so what amount of energy does it take to start it spinning and keep it spinning?

[@joegillian314]

So everything [object] that we think is a black hole is actually a neutron star? Is that what's being proposed?

[@ramkitty]

Basically that is the current belief, a neutron star gains matter to the Rothschild limit and now light can not escape. He seems to be describing a process similar to the Penrose process and that the black hole portion is a red herring and that readings are not true.

[@patos5661]

If there are no black holes so what did LIGO measure?

[@TheMachian]

Good question. medium.com/@aunzicker/five-years-of-gravitational-waves-a-chronicle-of-strange-coincidences-7d22be19319d

[@zyxzevn]

@@TheMachian Thanks for link to LIGO article on Medium. I did not know that the injection was so easy, and often I have found sudden discoveries related with fraud by a single person. Like the Schön case: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJenoKCiYqmVbJY Additionally, I have some more points for doubt. I think that the LIGO is an antenna for EM-waves, as their system is not shielded against magnetism. Similar laser systems are used for low frequency wave antennas. The mirrors and glasses in the system can convert the wave to a change in the laser signal Also the resonances in their system are capable of producing the signal from small disturbances, due to all kinds of non-linear effects. You don't see that in their frequency graph, because it only shows the linear resonances well.. I think of the EM-waves and sound-waves dancing around the mirror, like a gong. There is no way to predict that properly. About their signal processing: Their normalisation mathematical system is probably false too. Has it actually been tested thoroughly? I tried to find the signal with normal signal processing (without fourier), and could not find any signal. So there are probably different levels of problems with the LIGO

[@PhysicsNative]

Neutron star mergers at greater distance, like GW170817.

[@SkyDarmos]

Entropy is the inaccessibility of information, which fits a black hole very well. Even a quasi-black hole, which is what all real black holes are. They don't have event horizons.

[@andymouse]

Hmmm, not sure his enthusiasm is matched by the data but I just don't know. If this guy is right where does that put Cox and crew ? (celeb physicists)

[@mcnaugha]

I think It’s a super massive plasmoid which has a “burning” toroidal donut. Observations of which match the black hole predictions too. An entirely electromagnetic phenomenon. 😎

[@Trizzer89]

How can you doubt something we have pictures an video of?

[@andymouse]

We have no pictures of a black hole, the one you see on telly (orange doughnut shape) is generated by a computer from a set of data points, people argue that if the data is wrong then the 'picture' is fantasy.

[@FroggyMosh]

@@andymouse _"is generated by a computer from a set of data points"_ That's so weak. By that logic, the pictures you take with your phone or any DSLR camera can't be called pictures. Cause the light of the image falls onto chips (filtered and separated). Every single pixel of which being a data point to be gathered and ultimately processed into a (non-existing) 'picture'*. In that same sense your reply is not a 'reply', just a heap of ascii-strings gathered from your individual key presses, encoded, decoded and encoded again, sent my way halfway around the world in 1's and 0's to be decoded and re-generated by my computer as so to then be printed onto my screen*. It's not your reply I read, just a computer generated approximation of your 'reply'. _*obviously I missed some steps so these 'metaphors' aren't even metaphors, just Data -Points- Sets (Which people could argue that if the data is wrong then my 'metaphors' are Fantasy )_

[@chillyshotorbitus5152]

Black hole (in theory really) is just theory misunderstanding ..that matter not "accumulates endlessly to infinity at the point", but mass/energy level concentration causes space expansion [Bohr electron jump](creates physical field surrounding the nucleus causing thermonuclear scattering of the structure) what we empirically see for expanding atoms, planets, stars and galaxies (cosmos space where "everyone runs from eachother").

[@SkyDarmos]

Time dilation prevents black holes.

[@capitalismblows]

Did you pronounce Kundt wrong? Should the d be silent?

[@WilliamLious]

His statement of the circulation of galactic matter by a force matches the electric universe theory of why there's no black hole in the centre of the galaxy.

[@onderozenc4470]

It is a matter of freedom of expression but black holes are not even the predictions of General Relativity but the classical mechanics.

[@IAM0973D3]

Could the secretion disk be a pinch point of the magnetic; causing the creation of solar bodies; example: like a magnetic coil that can melt metal(s) or magnetize the metal(s). Which out star is connected to one of these many magnetic flux lines giving our sun its power? And other type of stars are caused by the make up of different material, as our star is possibly metric hydrogen?

[@PrivateSi]

In my main (as it's the simplest) version of my Positronic Universe Model in the making a supermassive neutron star becomes 'the singularity' though it is still just a neutron star, that is a very compact dark crystal. Due to intense gravity light cannot escape.. No spin is needed, only in-out force direction. They may spin a bit or a lot though, it's not out of the question - maybe roughly inline with galactic rotation, or perhaps much faster.. It is gravity that prevents light (so therefore also the electrostatic force) from escaping.. As light hits pretty equally from all directions (as does matter) spin should be 0. There is a chance the core of the neutron star 'singularity' annihilates Neutrons = Proton (2 positrons + 1 electron) + 1 electron back to empty = regular, balanced subspace field.. An embedded universe?

[@umangjain293]

I don't understand most of what you've written, but what do you mean when you write 'Proton (2 positrons + 1 electron)' ?

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

I was wondering how virtual pairs are created near blackhole and because of momentum in opposite directions one falls into blackhole and other moves away eventhough blackhole does not allow light to escape from it. I think we have to send telescope above or below the plane of our galaxy and observe what's happening at the centre.

[@TheMachian]

Will take a little time :-)

[@TheMachian]

The pair idea is nice, but a long way to observation...

[@apolloniuspergus9295]

Supposedly one would be out of the event horizon, thus allowing for the particle to escape. But it seems that the amount of energy needed for that to happen would be incredibly high

[@harshkumarf4379]

there must be a smarter way to do it and make observations with a theory supporting such observations rather than sending telescope above or below of our galaxy

[@davidwilkie9551]

In a wave-packaging formation of timing log-antilog modulation, all measurements are wave-particle coordination-identification positioning and only self-defining identification occurs in relative-timing ratio-rates of e-Pi-i AM-FM sync-duration condensation modulation tuning omnidirectional-dimensional cause-effect shape-shifting matrices of numberness, not crystalline precision number, of harmonic discrete logic. (That's the illusion of separation applied to the Uncertainty Principle, ie can't happen at Absolute Zero Kelvin except as Sublimation-Tunnelling, could be called "cofactor conduction"?)

[@mchmch6185]

Lol!

[@CarmineCorrente]

Super-cali-fragi-listic-expi-ala-doc-ious? ( i.e. what the fuck are you talking about)

[@alpineflauge909]

nice

[@benu6305]

Sehr interessant! Doch die Tonqualität ist verbesserungswürdig.

[@noway8233]

But if black holes dont exist what they are neutron stars o condesete mater or whatever but if thst the case the theory is wrong , no gravitational colapse? O yes the neutron star is uncompresable or something...anyway its good to know that there is a lots of things wrong in the standard model , its very nice hear this talks

[@Simonjose7258]

Fine. Okay. Sure. Then WHAT is at the center of our Galaxy!? What is bending the paths of all those stars that we can't see!? What's your theory that's so much better. Because that's not abstract. We can see the center and there's NOTHING there in the electronic spectrum. At all! Except for a brief bright flash we observed recently. What explains this?

[@mtheonlyone]

i guess he said it; "there must be something like a disk rotating at high speed and temperature" he didnt coin a name for that disk bec he is a real physicist and cannot just name what he imagines it to be but its certainly not like a black hole. Thats the way it works(he cannot just blurt out theories) and thats why it took newton so much time to publish law of gravitation even if he discovered it 20 years earlier

[@harshkumarf4379]

@@mtheonlyone by that account there must be a disk rotating in the centre of our solar system that keeps the planets in motion ,,, black holes make more sense than any other theories "that cannot be named" ,,,

[@Simonjose7258]

But a burning disc of black carbon would emit infrared at least.

[@MrWolynski]

He just explained their mistake. He is 100% correct, black holes do not exist.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Nice conversation, but, Please, don't record in echo prone rooms.

[@pghislain]

What is not prove is the existence of the singularity, an point without diameter with infinite mass per volume unit....

[@YawnGod]

Interesting.

[@charleshultquist9233]

Interesting but YOU NEED TO WORK ON YOUR AUDIO!!!!!!!!!!

[@LA_Viking]

Even though I viewed the video twice, Professor Kundt’s accent did not allow me to understand much of what he said. As a black hole agnostic I believe I would have gleaned quite a bit of useful knowledge had my understanding been better.

[@jamesohara4295]

Just as the Moon doesn't orbit the Earth but rather orbits the Moon Earth Barycenter, the Earth doesn't orbit the sun but rather it orbits the Moon Earth Sun Barycenter, likewise the stars don't orbit any mythical Black Hole but rather all the stars in the Galaxy orbit the Galactic Barycenter, thats why it looks like theres nothing there because there is nothing there but empty space.

[@ixglocTV]

42:30 "funds controlled by... ???" What's the last word?

[@TheMachian]

by club opinions...

[@ixglocTV]

@@TheMachian Thanks!

[@EasyThere]

So the neutron like repulsion is the only force in the universe that isn't cumulative?😃

[@hg6996]

With the help oft the VLT one could measure the mass of an invisible small object in the center of our galaxy to be 4,2 million times the mass of our sun. So the claim is that this is just a neutron star? How does it then overcome its gravitational pressure? Where did he disproof the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit?

[@TheMachian]

I agree that the S2 etc orbits are the best evidence for black holes. Yet, it is indirect. We do not know from the lab how matter behaves under such extreme conditions. Also the TOV limit is an extrapolation, however reasonable it might seem. I would call a direct proof if the Schwarzschild radius is measured with reasonable precision.

[@RohitSharma-mi8gt]

इंग्रेजी मध्ये संदृश्य साठी धन्यवाद ।

[@keithallpress9885]

So at the galactic center is a giant Catherine wheel

[@Discoverer-of-Teleportation]

massive star just, watch the glow in galaxy middle in picture

[@dosomething3]

microphone 🎤 is too sensitive

[@TheMachian]

If you have an idea how to fix it NOW without a new upload, please let me know (ChannelInfo-> Email).

[@vladimirnizovtsev3380]

The black hole fantasy is possible in science, where there is no understanding of the nature of gravity. On the other hand what can say about gravity a clerk who started talking at age five and until twenty-five years old did not see a professional physicist?

[@nightmisterio]

They faked the picture of the Black Hole with photoshop 2019

[@0whisper0_was_taken]

I dont understand any of this i just looked up if they exist i jusy need yes or no

[@TheDummbob]

The short answer is (from this video): No one knows, if we are honest. The measured data of massive cosmic objects doesn't uniquely point towards black holes. It can just as well (if not even better) be explained by other objects (such as neutron stars and dense accretion discs) We need further data, but to progagate that black holes exist is unscientific