Could Naked Singularities Exist?

[@scishowspace]

The first 200 to sign up at brilliant.org/scishowspace/ will get 20% off their annual subscription.

[@goora1866]

SciShow Space heyyyyyyyy... can you respond if you see this?

[@scishowspace]

Yes!

[@picobyte]

I've done a black hole. I'm preparing for the event #metoo

[@helium9823]

I have a question . Please do answer. According to Newtonian mechanics , for gravitational force to act on some particle .it should have mass and should have particle nature And according to relativity if a particle gains velocity equal to speed of light ,it looses it's particle nature , Here if we consider particle mature of photon . We just can't use Newtonian mechanics . Then how can we say that due to strong gravitational field , light cant escape through it ?

[@brandonthompkins4801]

@Captain Dic negative the gamma ray burst would have to overpower the gravity of the black hole, and since gamma burst travel at relativistic speeds it would not have enough oomph to dislodge anything.

[@isaac10231]

Of course they exist! I get ads for naked singularities near me all the time.

[@jungleboyjungleboy]

This needs more likes

[@damagedjefff6821]

Trust me, they are NOT real. It would be impossible to find real ones.

[@stevenjames5874]

That sounds like something Fry from Futurama would say lmfao

[@Infamous41]

That thing at the end of the black hole?!

[@falxonPSN]

@@damagedjefff6821 not impossible, but very, very unlikely.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

I was under the impression most singularities were naked, as the intense forces at the event horizon would destroy any pants they tried to wear.

[@David-zy1lr]

You have been granted the "Best comment award" prize.

[@avi8aviate]

Not just that prize, but the Nobel Comment Prize.

[@patrickmccurry1563]

Cosmic wedgie as everything disappears into a black hole.

[@marxtheenigma873]

As soon as I saw the title I knew there would be comments like this

[@brianshissler3263]

Thanks dad

[@ScottKorin]

Hey, singularity, put some clothes on! It's cold outside.

[@bobhope4288]

Singularity's won't listen to anyone, they're too dense.

[@jaxonnobles]

Actually, since black holes have accretion disks, which are insanely hot, and naked singularities _don't_ have that layer of warmth, they are *_literally_* naked, and space itself *IS* very cold.

[@talltroll7092]

Some singularities have the "Nudist" trait, although technically you just have to leave them without trousers to avoid the mood debuff

[@loke_the_champ]

rimworld right? :D

[@tanaymehta7212]

Illuminati: Don't you dare move...

[@RonnieBanerjee007]

What did the Black hole say to the singularity!? -"Send Nudes" What followed was astrophysics...

[@reborn6596]

Ronnie Banerjee get out

[@RonnieBanerjee007]

reborn new I'm sorry, but someone had to do it...

[@reborn6596]

Ronnie Banerjee haha

[@afrog2666]

Is that a singularity in your pocket or do you have a micropenis?

[@boftendfzxvc5833]

@@afrog2666 I dont know what your talking about its massive

[@Coonotafoo]

I like my Singularities fully dressed, thank you!

[@peter4210]

I like My Hank Hill not retired and selling propane and propane accessories, Thank you!

[@medexamtoolscom]

So rated BH-13, not rated NS-17.

[@DiscordBeing]

virgin

[@sparecreeper1580]

69 likes... nice

[@guystokesable]

Prude

[@keiduu6731]

How is nobody talking about how awesome the name: Conjecture of Cosmic Censorship is?

[@lum4r]

Oh my god, it's a pun. Stay classy, physicists.

[@doomerbloomer6160]

C O C C

[@VatsalJain-]

@@doomerbloomer6160 🤣🤣

[@TheAbsol7448]

KZbin: *heavy breathing*

[@y3rmania]

Is that something that China came up with?

[@thomdilling5855]

Always happy when Reid is the host. He just seems like such a chill dude.

[@medexamtoolscom]

He also sounds kind of like Penn Gillette.

[@rickybasilone8989]

One of your better videos guys. Always prefer the longer more in depth ones, and Reid was very clear in his speaking

[@steveheath6893]

Quite the complisult 😆

[@deldarel]

I was gonna ask "then what would a naked singularity look like?" but then I remembered that it would be infinitely small so impossible to see.

[@DavoidJohnson]

And he does utter the phrase 'we have never observed one' and then moved on as if that shouldn't raise any questions.

[@thedeemon]

They warp space around a lot, so they would be easy to see by the way they distort the image of stars behind them. Gravitational lensing. And no, Victor, their mass is not zero, not at all. To learn more look up "Kerr metric".

[@mihan2d]

thedeemon But under which conditions they could even possibly exist having this much gravity but not creating an even horizon by pulling photons towards them? Reid didn't say about it either (unless I was listening with my butt) but this is like the most obvious question here.

[@thedeemon]

It's all about the ratio between angular momentum and mass. If the angular momentum is high enough, then equations predict such effect. Such black hole must be formed by huge amount of matter that rotates with high speeds in one direction. It's only a mathematical prediction, we don't think any physical process can really lead to such state. There are many ideas why such state should not really be possible.

[@mihan2d]

thedeemon Well I guess then either it would spin so freaking fast the photons (somehow) would just bounce off of it or one literally shouldn't be able to imagine how this could happen, not from a classical physics perspective anyway. ...or I'm just dumb.

[@jetjazz05]

If the internet has proven anything, it's that somebody's gonna toss a pencil up in the air and have it stand on it's end.

[@artemkras]

Jesse Crandle only if there are some funny cats involved

[@2bitmarketanarchist337]

I tossed a sheet of paper up in the air once and it landed on it's side, wish I would've had a camera

[@zachcrawford5]

I flipped a quarter once and it landed on its edge.

[@joshua7586]

I rolled a car once and it landed on it's tires

[@zachcrawford5]

Joshua Real That makes me wish I could drive even more.

[@UFBMusic]

What do you think of the idea of a Planck Star? If you assume that the center of a black hole is just filled to the maximum packing density of the Universe rather than being infinitely dense, then surely all of the paradoxes would disappear?

[@amandagarcia2848]

UFBMusic True, if that was the case, the physics behind black holes wouldn't break down, but do we have evidence of plank stars?

[@UFBMusic]

We don't have any evidence, this is all just theoretical for now. More often than not, however, if something is elegant theoretically, it points us in the right direction. I mean, we don't have any direct evidence for an infinitely dense singularity either, it's just the maths that points us in that direction.

[@heathrowell378]

@@andrey4898 I wouldn't say this is the issue. There's no force of nature holding up stars - it's outward fusion pressure, then electron degeneracy pressure, and then neutron degeneracy pressure that holds up different stars against the force of gravity before a black hole finally forms. The deal is that there's nothing about light or causality that has to be overcome to resist an infinity result. The speed of light is only pertinent to the event horizon, which also only means it keeps us from measuring events happening deeper within the black hole. The matter itself is still on an inward journey towards the singularity, and the singularity being a point of infinite mass and density is the problem. What we need is a description of some kind of degeneracy pressure that can't be overcome no matter the force of gravity upon it. Some kind of Planck Pressure.

[@xx_noone_xx]

Yes because the event horizon wouldn't exist and it wouldn't take an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. Also light would escape the Planck star at very low energies.

[@Zappygunshot]

The term 'cosmic censorship' to describe a void of blackness masking every singularity is just so brilliant

[@MrDivinity22]

"And you might wanna fasten your seat belt, because things are about to get a hole lot weirder." Hihihi

[@Questn]

As always, extremely informative and well presented.

[@GreatOrigins]

Great host and/or speaker. 👍

[@bookknight]

Questn So black is a colour?

[@herrschmidt5477]

well presented yes. Informative....mmmeh

[@antonyhawkins9112]

I like this host. He gets the information across in a way that I can easily understand and makes me want to learn more.

[@mono_si]

Maybe it's like the funnel cloud of a tornado. For a short period of time after its formation, it hasn't had enough time to form all of its parts.

[@jeremiahshields679]

More like the eye of a storm. When a storm cell forms, in this case a tornado or hurricane, it pulls in everything around it. However, at the center the weather is different then in the event horizon around it. Would that not be a logical conjecture?

[@deusexaethera]

CORRECTION: We don't actually know whether there's an infinitely-dense singularity inside a black hole. Its gravity merely behaves the same as a mathematical model of a singularity. It's entirely plausible that a black hole contains a large ball of degenerate matter slightly smaller than the event horizon, but we can't see it because the event horizon warps the surrounding spacetime so severely that it's impossible to get a coherent image of the interior.

[@ShaoZapomnit]

That I keep mentioning! It's quite surprising that they never tell about any of that. Even if light can't escape the object, it isn't unlikely to be something that we already know but can't see because of said force preventing us from getting any information. We do know that any star can turn into a very heavy object/spin incredibly fast to achieve an immense gravitational influence. A pulsar for example might as well be a naked singularity itself even if it's not dense enough to be sucking up light since how would we be able to see a singularity otherwise!

[@tarafficstory]

Sounds possible but, it is a balance between gravity and opposite forces of atomic nuclei.

[@marv5078]

Interesting

[@hypercubemaster2729]

Considering a black hole is denser than a neutron star, and neutron stars are so dense that the protons and electrons of the star are compressed so tightly that they actually combine to form neutrons, I don't see it possible that a black hole would contain a ball of matter only slightly smaller than its event horizon.

[@GuruGodPlays]

It would be really interesting to find out that Dark Energy is just the left over Naked Singularities of stars billions of years old. The problem is the amount of Dark Energy vs. the amount of possible Naked Singularity stars. Still a fun idea.

[@ceoof601]

No

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

how would that even be possible? naked singularities would *attract* matter, whereas dark energy *repels* matter

[@peanutbutterwarrior1956]

If the diameter of the event horizon was less than the diameter of a elemental, detectable particle such as a photon or an electron and we made a perfectly solid wall around the outside of the event horizon so the black hole couldn't evaporate through hawking radiation wouldn't it be possible to use the particles to find out information about inside the event horizon as they hit things inside the event horizon but they cannot be consumed as they cannot for into the hole. And why couldn't we use particles that are quantumly (I think that's a word) entangled to find out what's inside the event horizon by doing something like entangling two electrons so if one has spin up the other has spin down, sending one into the black hole and using vague tests, so they stay entangled, work out what is happening to the electron inside the event horizon.

[@Xclub40X]

Well I'm laying here on my own in bed with no clothes on. . *HAS BECOME A NAKED SINGULARITY*

[@microbuilder]

I dont quite understand how two virtual particles popping into existence of either side of the event horizon would cause the black hole to evaporate. If the particle on the outside of the event horizon never passed through the event horizon, then its not adding mass to the black hole, nor removing mass from it, but the particle inside the event horizon would be adding mass, and not evaporating it...?

[@azaizl]

as far as I understand, those two particles are of opposite charges, so let's say if the negative one popped inside the event horizon, then it will annihilate another positive particle from the inside, so the black hole will lose mass

[@Aleonore22]

I think he's talking about Hawking radiation. Look it up :)

[@lains.e.3654]

Virtual particles form in pairs of matter & anti-matter If the 1 that forms inside is the anti-matter the matter one Would be released to the universe and the anti-matter explodes inside the black hole

[@Grazey]

microbuilder virtual particles take energy from the vacuum and in this case the energy still must be returned so it takes some energy from the black hole and sense alot of energy is a tiny amount of mass you why it takes so long for the black hole the evaporate

[@Ignacio.Romero]

A very simplified answer: To create particles you need energy, which comes from the black hole. When a particle is created, an antiparticle is also created. When they two collide they annihilate each other and the energy is liberated into the black hole, but when a particle/antiparticle is created in the event horizon, there are possibilities that they are created in opposite sides. When that happens the half of the energy used to create the particles is lost

[@TanteEmmaaa]

0:55 The zero volume point, aka the singularity is a misconception. It is based on Einsteins formulas about gravity, and of course, there is a mathematical singularity. But to explain the insides of a black hole, we need at least quantum theory, maybe something else. For Example, how should the universe hold the information about how much particles are inside the black hole inside a zero volume point? If so, then one particel, or zwo particels, or 4 particles, are all of the same size. But you need to store the information somehow. And we know the matter is still there because of its gravity. So what's more likely is that the matter gets extremely compressed, like plank-length-compressed, but not to are zero volume point compressed. That is just a misuse of a formula that make good predictions on our regular matter. And even mathematically, you can't get to infinity, or infinite small, anyway. You can always just approach towards it.

[@thriquinox]

What if the singularity is a hypersphere (4d sphere) and we can only observe the edge of the said sphere because the rest of it is in the other dimension. As it absorbs mass and matter it continues to build up on the 4th dimension. Makes me wonder if the big bang was just a ball rolling down the 4d hill.

[@rosabscura]

Interesting 🤔

[@RyllenKriel]

Balancing a pencil on the pointy end is actually quite simple but only if you wish it to be. Use a softer surface such as clay and embed the tip in it, rubber band several together so the tips create many stable points of contact or even use magnets to help suspend the pencil on end. Every problem can have it's perimeters interpreted from a different perspective. Further defining the rules which govern the problems we need to solve are the real issue for me. Sadly...just as in the Hawking example, we just don't have enough data yet to start making bold statements. Fun video and curious ideas though!

[@josephdillard9907]

I want to know what conditions it would take for an imploding star to create a naked singularity, we need more info on that cause I can't even imagine what conditions would be required for that......

[@dynamicworlds1]

Joseph Dillard agreed

[@thedeemon]

Very fast rotation, angular momentum must be higher than certain value: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric

[@thedeemon]

Probably, although we don't really know how general relativity works on micro (quantum) level. And keep in mind that in rotating black holes singularity is not a point in the center but a thin ring.

[@FireHax0rd]

I feel a little silly asking.. but could someone explain the answer around 7:10? R_Earth decreases and everything else is constant.. Would potential energy not increase?

[@TyDreacon]

A bit late but note the negative sign in front of the equation. The absolute value increases, but -7 is less than -3.

[@NewMessage]

That awkward moment when you see two singularities at once.

[@marv5078]

😂

[@Breathingdeeper]

"... It could change our understanding of the universe as we know it.." is said too many times for comfort on this channel

[@gameu360]

I don't know, were they clothed to begin with?

[@sirBrouwer]

well apparently they liked to dress in black before. but are now looking for something new.

[@higurashikai09]

Nude is the new black?

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

im still waiting on those white holes

[@edsmith2562]

Hey Guys and Gal, I took her up on the Brilliant offer just shy of a year ago and love it. I am a 62 year old biker and Brilliant is perfect for an addled mind like mine. I will never slow down. I get jazzed by it several times a week. Perhaps more often that I enjoy this wonderful effort that is Sci Show Space. Keep up the good work.

[@SouthernGothicYT]

Hmm, a black hole without the event horizon... so a black hole without the black.

[@marv5078]

Basically just a hole in spacetime

[@dalemartin815]

4:30 perfect storm for naked singularity? How do you make the storm perfect? To what end would make the storm perfect?

[@conure512]

How would a naked singularity even work? By definition, if it has mass, it has gravity- and if it has gravity, it has a schwartzchild radius. As small as this radius may be, it's still bigger than "infinitely small", so something with no volume that has mass (even a tiny amount of mass) would default to becoming a black hole. So from what I can tell, you really can't have a singularity without a black hole around it. It's basically trying to have mass with no gravity.

[@MikeRosoftJH]

I've read that - according to general relativity calculations - a rotating black hole wouldn't actually have an event horizon, if its rate of rotation is high enough.

[@unvergebeneid]

MikeRosoftJH, the event horizon becomes flatter the faster it spins. But it can't spin faster than the speed of light which happens to be the point where the poles would reveal the singularity. So yeah, I have the same question as the OP: how would this even work?

[@thedeemon]

The answer is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric Rotating black holes indeed. If angular momentum gets higher than certain value, the two event horizons meet and disappear. And yes, rotating black holes have two horizons: outer and inner. Schwarzschild solution is a simplified edge case of non-rotating black hole.

[@redhandsbluefaces]

@thedeemon Yes, I gather that when the angular momentum is high enough, the event horizon disappears, and is simply replaced by the ergosphere.

[@conure512]

thedeemon Ah thanks for explaining that, it makes sense now.

[@wolfbd5950]

2:25 it annoys me that the lower jet is moving in the wrong direction

[@shr2.718ya]

I learn more from this channel than a month at school...

[@wertywerty6]

captainwinky If he is in secondary school, there is no way that school will teach him more than Sci Show

[@JanPBtest]

0:50 Actually the singular set is not a single point, it's a surface (see the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinate system representation to check it). In the nonrotating case (static aka. Schwarzschild) this surface represents "end points" of all the paths of free fall into the hole. In the rotating case (stationary aka. Kerr, probably the only one actually occurring) this surface can be an actual "place outside existence" (technically: the Schwarzschild singular set is spacelike, the Kerr singular set can be timelike). BTW, the odd thing is that ancient mystics, including the classic Christian ones, have always talked about something they called "the Void". In the words of e.g. Jakob Boehme writing around the year 1500 that the Void is incomprehensible, infinitely rigid, without dimension or extent. Some of them also refer to it as a _"wall_ of nothingness" which curiously matches the current physical model I mentioned above. So going back to that physical model: it's actually incorrect to say that the singular set exerts a gravitational _pull._ What exerts that pull is a region inside the horizon, it's a sort of one-way street. OTOH the singular set _itself_ is gravitationally _repulsing._ In the Schwarzschild (nonrotating) case this doesn't manifest itself because the "one-way street" region inside the horizon extends all the way to the singularity, so it always pulls in. But in the rotating (Kerr) case, that "one-way street" region _stops before_ the singular set and once the infalling object reaches that region, it will feel gravitational _repulsion_ from the singular set which BTW in this case is shaped as a circle (ring). The repulsion is strong enough that in order to fall _through_ the ring, the infalling object needs a bit of power (propulsion) to push through. On the "other side" there is an uber-bizarre feature sitting near the singular ring: a _time machine._ It's a region (shaped like a slightly distorted torus) with the following property: if you run around it, the faster and the more times around the better, you'll emerge from it at a time _earlier_ than you started! This alone probably indicates that the entire singularity concept is likely an artefact of the theory (i.e., general relativity) and will likely go away in a future theory. Horizons will probably stay though, as they are really observed. Last but not least, at 6:09 the name "Schwarzschild" is pronounced incorrectly which is more or less "ShfahrZ-shield", where the "Z" denotes the same sound as the "zz" in "pizza" or the "z" in "Mozart". It means in English "black-shield", not a bad name considering the concept :-)

[@zebionic]

I'm pretty sure Roger Penrose is a mathematician, not an astrophysicist, even though he has contributed significantly to mathematics relevant to astrophysics and cosmology.

[@rykehuss3435]

A couple of slightly misinformed (or simplified) things I picked on a) when a "star collapses", its not the whole star, its just the core (which happens in under a second). Rest of the star is blown away in the following supernova b) Gravitational pull has nothing to do with why not even light can escape beyond the event horizon. But rather the infinite curvature of space-time which causes all possible paths to converge towards the singularity. The gravitational effect at the edge of a supermassive BH's horizon is not a lot, relatively speaking. The smaller the BH, the greater the "pull" at the edge.

[@thedeemon]

Gravity = spacetime curvature, so it's just a matter of choice of words. Every event horizon is a place where spacetime is curved just so much to not let light out, and we can describe the very same thing as gravity being strong enough to not let light out, it's the same thing.

[@fermat2112]

So many ‘That’s what she said’ moments.

[@sylvertonguephoenix]

I believe that there may, according to my limited knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics, be a small window where the Singularity has enough mollecular density to bend light around it but never catch it. In this case, we couldn't be able to see the singularity, not would we see an event horizon, but rather a point in space where light is bent around a region of seemingly empty space. The margin for this to take place, however, would be on such a fragile, narrow wall, that any small loss in Mass would cause the Singularity to suddenly expand rapidly, and any extra mass would cause it to collapse further, forming an event horizon where no light can escape. In addition, we don't know what the singularity looks like. It could either be brighter than a Quazar, or may produce no light at all. All I know is that if they did exist, they would certainly be highly radioactive, and unstable.

[@johnpena8704]

WoooHoooo! I got the Brilliant coupon! Thanks SciShow!

[@brandyrose9997]

Great video! Love it whenever these notifications pop up. Thank you. ❤️

[@ashtongreen5494]

Reid is funny, and he shares very interesting facts about theories and space!😃

[@kraakenhex8459]

So, just as a matter of clarification, if the singularity is infinitely dense, isn't that what is CAUSING the black hole? So what would the hypothetical properties of the naked singularity be? Wouldn't it also have insane gravity? Wouldn't it eventually become a black hole again if it was given a lot of mass to munch, and thus increasing its gravitational pull? Or is this singularity too weak on its own to crush more matter into its infinitely dense core? Or in other words, are you suggesting there is a gradient, on which at some point there isn't enough gravitational pull to crush more mass, but just enough to hold it together? So what would happen if you did add matter to it? Would it simply pile up in a very dense manner around the outside of it, but wouldn't further add mass to the infinitely dense center? What would the interaction of a naked singularity with matter even be?

[@darthmortus5702]

I thought you could also potentially see the singularity if somehow you found a very quickly spinning black hole or spun it up yourself (crazy hard). Because even though the singularity is infinitely small it can be made into an infinitely thin pancake if spun up which would then poke out the sides of the event horizon allowing you to see it.

[@marv5078]

Wouldn't the event Horizon also get formed into a pancake?

[@darthmortus5702]

@@marv5078 I think it would stay more spherical but some squishing would probably happen. I think it might still be theoretically possible and I recall hearing about it.

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

i'm not sure how much you can apply newtonian mechanics to singularities

[@MasterCorundum]

Tell that singularity to put its accretion disk on before going out; it's indecent.

[@onlyonSiMPLE]

But how small is the singularity? Is it as tiny as a sun or planet or molecul or atom??

[@Sonicgott]

Smaller than a molecule, and denser than a neutron star.

[@PBTophie]

Would the mass from which the universe expanded have been a naked singularity?

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

i don't think that the concept of either a naked singularity nor of a black hole would even apply here. you're talking about a state 'before' there was even space or time

[@ScootrRichards]

unrelated question that popped up while viewing scishow: Given that electrons and protons are so different (one is elementary, the other a composite of quarks; size difference; strong/weak interactions are so different, etc), there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect a "conservation" law or symmetry between them like there is btwn matter/antimatter. So why does it seem that the universe has the same number of protons as electrons? there doesn't seem to be great pools of either scattered about the cosmos. granted, charge would cause protons and electrons to quickly close the dostance btwn them, but that just assumes there are equal numbers of each to match up with. why is the universe charge-neutral, or is it? how did the exactly right numbers of e and p come into existence, given that their origins must be so different?

[@eagames456]

If I understand correctly, a naked singularity is a point of infinite density without enough mass to capture light. They don't seem that unlikely if you look at it that way (even though the mathematics of infinities are always a bit odd).

[@thstroyur]

Iam Sagittare Nope - it's a singular point of the curvature tensor not enclosed within trapping surfaces, or some like that

[@PNWZombieWatch]

I wondering if you could cancel out a black hole by feeding it antimatter from the outside.. assuming you could create enough of it?

[@thedeemon]

No, antimatter has positive mass and positive energy. Just the charge is opposite.

[@PNWZombieWatch]

Cool! Thanks!

[@josephw.3877]

You said that singularities have infinite density, but how can that happen if there is 0 volume because of mass/volume=density?

[@narutosaga12]

something called limits....

[@datamancy138]

Boots n' Catz division by zero results in infinity. look at a graph of the equation y=1/x

[@ngw03]

Boots n' Catz Dividing by zero is the prime example of a mathematical singularity…

[@josephw.3877]

Claire D. Ok thanks

[@osimmac]

Yes, start with Mass of 1, and volume of 1 to start. 1/1 = 1 decrease volume, keep mass the same; 1/0.5 = 2 1/0.1 = 10 1/0.01= 100 1/0.001 = 1000 as volume approaches 0, the density will approach infinity. limits

[@roniusadethel9768]

So, what if someone were to run instrumentation attached to wire and try to take measurements inside the black hole? How far past the event horizon could measurements be taken before it begins to draw the electrons transmitting the information into the black hole instead of the info flowing back to the ship?

[@ab-qf1iv]

The wire would snap. Even if it didn't, due to time and space switching inside a black hole, the information would only be able to move down into the black hole. Space movements become as inevitable as time movements.

[@CrisURace]

"this video is not suitable for all advertisers, so it's gonna be demonetised" (i bet it happened...)

[@darealrulezbreaker9493]

so a naked singularity is a singularity without the gravitational pull that black hole have right? but isnt the gravitational pull itself what creates a singularity in the first place? what creates/makes/holds up the singularity if the gravitational pull is gone?

[@hypeasaurusrex3422]

The original state of the universe WAS a naked singularity.

[@matthorakova2677]

Kilwillae Mind. Blown.

[@mateograziosi9472]

woah

[@dynamicworlds1]

There's a hypothesis that the universe was formed by a collapsing black hole and all black holes in our universe create more universes.

[@sirBrouwer]

and then fashion week started.

[@Jadinandrews]

I think a naked singularity would look more like the big bang, but in reverse.

[@edwardhunia6315]

I have a problem with the answer - "potential lowers..." F=GMm/r^2 where m is person, and M is earth... since only density changes, masses M & m remain constant and therefore since the radius reduces, the Force increases due to an increase in acceleration being inversely proportional to the square of the radius Newtons law! proof:: assume we raise the person a distance x from the surface of the earth then your answer can be stated as the following inequality U=Fx =xGMm/(r-s)^2 < xGMm/r^2 = Fx_i =U_i where U_i is the potential before shrinking radius and s is the radial difference. therefore 1/(r-s)^2 < 1/r^2 therefore r

[@TyDreacon]

Note that it's U=-GM1M2 / r^2. The negative sign makes a difference, as if you start with: -GMm/(r-s)^2 < -GMm/r^2 Where r is the initial radius and s is the decrease in radius, then divide both sides by -GMm, you get: 1 / (r-s)^2 > 1 / r^2 (Can't forget: when multiplying or dividing by a negative number, the inequality flips) Also note that the equation deals with potential energy, not forces. (The equation for gravitational force is very similar, but non-negative)

[@edwardhunia6315]

People who understand physics know I did indeed state potential in the proof, and newtons force law was only the entry point. Also, you need to know when to use magnitudes, so please learn physics properly

[@TyDreacon]

1. I just wanted to make sure, since, like I pointed out, the equation uses a negative sign to differentiate it from the force of gravity equation. Mind that I don't know your BG in physics and am trying to explain the answer more from the ground-up. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "use magnitudes"? If you mean taking the absolute value of both sides of the inequality, that wouldn't logically hold (-7 < -3 but |-7| = 7 > |-3| = 3), so I don't think that's something you could apply to the potential energy equation to just rid of the negative signs. But if you mean something else, let me know! 3. An alternative is merely to plug in a few numbers into the equation-e.g. M1 = 100kg, M2 = 100kg, R = 100,000m, R-S = 50,000m (or, simply, S = 50,000m)-and seeing what pops out.

[@edwardhunia6315]

agreed. its always good practice to test out results, especially if you're not sure.

[@TyDreacon]

In that case: U(r) = -6.67e-11 * 100 * 100 / 100,000^2 U(r) = -6.67e-7 / 1e10 U(r) = -6.67e-21 U(r) = -0.000667 aJ U(r-s) = -6.67e-11 * 100 * 100 / 50,000^2 U(r-s) = -6.67e-7 / 2.5e9 U(r-s) = -2.668e-16 U(r-s) = -26.68 aJ And -26.68 < -0.000667

[@dbrew2u]

Could Naked Singularities Exist? Sure , unless their to modest .

[@stddgv11]

Somebody help me. When 2 particles spontaneously pop into existence and 1 outside the EH escapes while the 1 inside does not, how is that evaporation? It sounds to me like you just added more mass, not the opposite. What am I not understanding?

[@nathanmckenzie904]

If nothing can escape how are things ejected from black holes?

[@maracachucho8701]

They aren't. Watch the video again.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

Maracachucho not this particular black hole but there are others that eject energy www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2015/11/30/black-hole-ejects-massive-energy-jet-after-devouring-a-star/

[@SuperLoops]

its impossible for stuff inside the event horizon to get out. stuff thats being pulled in can get super hot and emit lots of radiation and particles and they can escape, so long as theyre emitted before the stuff crosses the event horizon

[@cortster12]

nathan mckenzie Quantum mechanical effects at the edges of black holes, due to the fact that quantum fields encompass all of space-time (so the same field is inside AND outside the event horizon), means you'll have matter from inside the black hole 'leaking' outside.

[@cortster12]

+PixelatedDonkey Only now do I realize he was talking about stuff outside the black hole being flung away, not hawking radiation. Oops.

[@deeedee38]

I don’t have a degree in physics, but I’m very passionate. So, in my opinion, it is more likely that there is a naked singularity as opposed to a white hole that looks like something from Walt Disney comics. Is it also possible to change the language of the courses? I would like them in Italian. Thanks for the video!

[@shappo]

Good news is you would die the instant you crossed the event horizon (no matter the size of the black hole), so no waiting forever.

[@Tautolonaut]

Wouldn't that instant last forever tho? I'm joking.

[@shappo]

Touche'

[@shappo]

The gravitational gradient can be survivable but since all the forces/force carrying particles also travel at the speed of light no part of you closer to the singularity could interact with any part of you further away. Probably just a quark mist when all is said and done.

[@tadho4652]

Nijaitchy I've seen that video too somewhere, but still get confused as to how the gravitational force inside gigantic blackhole's event horizon is not strong enough to kill you. The event horizon is the part where not even a light could escape right? no matter how big the diameter of the blackhole. I mean if the gravitation is strong enough to prevent light from escaping, how couldn't it rip you apart?

[@shappo]

Because it isn't the force of gravity it is the gradient of the force they are referring to. Free fall in all constant gravity fields are indistinguishable.

[@srpenguinbr]

what if we have two black holes coming closer together? If a photon passes just in the middle of them (assuming their mass is equal), it wouldn't feel any attraction at all and leave the event horizon. Is that correct? Would it have time to leave or would time dilation make it impossible? Or then I don't understand very well gravity and the photon will experience a force.

[@Holobrine]

I thought a black hole was just a chunk of mass smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. Where does the "infinitely tiny" part enter the picture?

[@davidannett3322]

I really want to believe that there's just this "thing" behind the event horizon, but it just doesn't add up; whatever it is, it's too small and too dense to even make sense of it. I think we're just gonna have to accept that until at least the year 300 billion when we transcend.......

[@outshimed]

I thought the same, why do we think the mass is confined to a point instead of condensed to a new hyper-dense but not infinitely dense state?

[@h.plovecat4307]

David Annett Its only small relative to us. There could be a universe infinitely bigger than our own inside there for all we know.

[@patrickrossi75]

good question, I don't like infinities. That is why I like the Planck lenght as the smallest possible. My question is if a 10 solar mass singularity is infinitley small/dense, what is the difference then to a 10bn solar mass supermassive black hole. Both have infinite values?

[@rorygrice5758]

yea, i thought that was weird too. i think the implication was that the singularity forms in the supernova, then the singularity build the black hole? im going to have to look up this penrose theorem...

[@solidus3168]

@SciShow Space, Is a naked singularity the same as a Planck Star from a Black Hole that emitted enough Hawking Radiation over time to reduce the event horizon smaller than the circumference of the object itself?

[@enigma647]

ofc its me when i leave bathtub

[@Greengate777]

Well, it's Saturday, that means that there will be countless naked singularities all over, looking into a glass of something and wondering where it all went wrong...

[@benl8962]

how would that even work? if its a naked singularity. a point that has infinite density there has to be some point at which light cant escape its gravitational pull right?

[@dazdingoz0r]

Exactly. This whole video and the very concept of a naked singularity is nothing but mental masturbation on a contradictory concept. It's like pondering if a square circle could exist. He's correct about one thing though ... if one would exist within our Universe, it would indeed change the whole world of physics.

[@thedeemon]

General relativity answer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric

[@ryanriverside]

As I understand it, for naked singularities, the "event horizon" falls below the one-dimensional "surface" of the singularity - it becomes negative in value as measured by radius out from the singularity. This does not make logical sense, though it does make mathematical sense. One theoretical composition of a naked singularity would be a singularity comprised of particles which all have the same electric charge, or another - that the singularity has large angular momentum or spin. Celestial bodies have never been observed with appreciable net charge, however, and the required spin is absurdly high to remove the event horizon. I think the idea is that electric repulsion (think the entire energy of the universe in a singularity) can overcome the gravitational attraction.

[@GraveUypo]

from my understanding that would mean that it has simultaneously infinite density and no mass. which is a weird concept to say the least. seems like another "spherical object in a vacuum" deal.

[@guifdcanalli]

The singularities are infinitelly small, but still all black holes need to have more mass than a neutron star (after all this is that makes then black holes, more mass that surpasses neutron degeneracy preassure) and this minimun mass would be enough to keep the event horizon always distant from the singularity

[@dkamm65]

Oh my god, I am so sick of these Brilliant plugs on nearly every channel I'm subscribed to.

[@WillMoff0]

then sign up for Patreon, and get others too.

[@vlogenericsrants948]

Thank the KZbin Adpocalypse 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0

[@taicanium]

@@vlogenericsrants948 1.0: Pewdiepie. 2.0: Google. 3.0: _GOOGLE._

[@erroneum]

What do electrons count as? I thought they were considered point like, but they do have mass.

[@LuficariusRatspeed]

Pssst, your singularity is showing...

[@medexamtoolscom]

Better than your BLACK HOLE showing.

[@TBomb15]

here's the thing about singularities: there are different types. A singularity is just a point in space that our current theories can't describe. the type discussed in this video is a gravitational singularity. An example of another type is a thermal singularity. The gist of a thermal singularity is that you get something so inconceivably hot that the theory of black body radiation (which relates temperature to wavelength of light emitted) breaks down. If you got something so hot that the radiation it emitted would be smaller than the planck length, then you've got a problem. That object would break the laws of physics, and thus be a singluarity.

[@TheExMuslim]

I was waiting to hear Stephen Hawking's name in that video :D

[@abdulazizrushdi9154]

your name is weird

[@patrickmccurry1563]

He does love making bets he hopes to lose. That way he "wins" either way.

[@pantherax1]

Matt Langstraaat shut up dirt bag

[@jine7123]

I have a question! What is the temperature like inside the event horizon, close to the singulartity?

[@manu1434u]

01:40 Ok stop lying, there is a library inside the event horizon and Matthew McConaughey told us so..

[@aaronramsden1657]

How much matter would it take to be squished into a plank length size area for it to be considered "infinite"?

[@cynthiasoolihua2410]

rest in peace, Stephen Hawking. an infinitely wondrous mind.

[@listek981]

I have a problem with your explanation of Hawking radiation. If two particles pop into existences and one of them is outside the event horizon than it means there's one inside the event horizon, so the black hole gets one extra particle to feast on. How does it makes the black hole lose mass then?

[@rickjames5998]

his head is a naked singularity

[@necrosis5453]

Rick James was this really necessary

[@cherylbaker3319]

i love him and feel mean as well as the guilt but this comment made me snort=laugh out loud tbf, as unexpected scrolling down, serious comments all read.. then this and it just had me hit so suddenly with a line of comedy gold. well done

[@World_Theory]

Is it possible for gravitational waves to escape a black hole? I ask because, if you could somehow rig a device to alter gravitational waves in a reliable and predictable way, and you gave control of that to a observational probe that could survive crossing the event horizon of a black hole, then you could possibly, with an array of very sensitive equipment, receive information from beyond the event horizon of a black hole, transmitted by gravity waves.

[@TedLJones]

I do in the shower.

[@awesomeduck7022]

SHUSH

[@michaellesak6912]

someone please explain how you can have singularity that does not have an event horizon. is it an issue of mass? as in having enough mass to form a singularity but not enough for escape velocity to exceed the speed of light? i was under the impression that anything not massive enough to form a black hole could not condense into a singularity, but would instead become a neutron star. is it a side effect of hawking radiation and the singularity loosing mass?

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Question, if gravity propagates at the speed of light mass should do the same. If light can’t propagate and escape from a black hole gravity also can’t propagate. Therefore mass should not be able to escape and we should have zero mass on the surface of a black hole and also we should have zero gravity on the surface. In the future the idea of someone falling into a black hole might seem as mad as someone falling off the edge of the world!

[@spuzzdawg]

I don't think your logic works very well.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

What about this: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.

[@masansr]

First sentence is false. If you do general relativity (one of the best proven physical theories out there), gravity isn't "propagating" in the same sense as EM radiation is, it's just an effect of the curvature of space, which isn't bounded by the black hole. Also falling in a black hole is like falling in the Sun. Takes a ton more energy to get in the Sun than to get away from it.

[@TyDreacon]

The problem, I believe, is that Einstein conceptions of gravity are perturbations of a spatiotemporal fabric. Light sits on this fabric and so its worldlines will bend toward the singularity (which is why, despite having no mass, light can be lensed by significant masses). The perturbations of the fabric, however, sit _within_ rather than _on_ this fabric and so aren't affected by such curvature. On the QM side, there isn't a for-sure quantum theory of gravity, but the gist of it is: virtual particles carry forces (like gravity and electromagnetism) and, due to being virtual, aren't bound by the same laws of physics. So they're free to travel faster than light to escape a singularity. For better details, see David Kornreich's piece here: curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/451-how-do-gravitons-escape-black-holes-to-tell-the-universe-about-their-gravity-advanced

[@masansr]

To say that something get's "sucked' into black hole would be to say that we are being sucked into Sun right now. TyDreacon That article you linked posed a ton more questions than it answered. Like, WAY more. I'll have to ask QFT professor about that someday.

[@bakersbread104]

except... how would it not have one? can you try explaining how that would work

[@osimmac]

just enough to collapse space into a singularity, but at radius = 0, thats where the event horizon starts.

[@bakersbread104]

ok thanks

[@purpurr707]

what if the big bang is just a cosmic entity farting and accidentally made a universe LOL

[@b33lze6u6]

Fawn Frauscht you are so smart you must watch richard and mortimer

[@pompey333]

If you go to 3:26 listen close when he says predicts he burped i had to watch it twice but he did great recovery tho great video!

[@antemannen2765]

First! #notificationSquad

[@MrMega1423]

no you're not

[@camillecirrus3977]

*no*

[@mthlay15]

Would you be able to process thought once you passed the EH?

[@theheadshot45]

7 minutes and 37 seconds condensed to one word; No.

[@Mechadude32]

Puff,TheMagic You could sarcastically summarize a majority of these videos as "Yes," "No," or "Maybe" but that's basically true with any question. You aren't being clever nor are you accurate with what the video said.

[@Aleph-Noll]

hello brother

[@artemkras]

Puff,TheMagic it's a video on singularities, after all ) they do condense )) Also, "Could Naked Singularities Exist? [_] Yes [_] No" ))

[@andershusmo5235]

Thank you Anstign! I would also like to add that, for science, simply having the answer (yes/no) is only all that useful if you know the reasons behind it. Otherwise it's not very practical information, as you can't derive a lot of further information from it. Knowing WHY, gaining understanding, is the entire point.

[@Mentaclink]

The answer's actually "yes but highly improbable".

[@chrisbarker2700]

Question. How could a black hole shrink because of a virtual particle interaction? If half goes into the black hole and half escapes into space the black hole shouldn't lose any mass since it's technically taking on more mass. Not letting some go. Hawking never made much sense with Hawkins radiation. A black hole would care less about a virtual particle interaction. I also believe there is no singularity. There's nothing more than a Plank Star at it's core disturbing the Spacetime around it due to it's insane mass at such small scales.

[@shipofthesun]

How would you find them? Gravitational lensing without a corresponding galaxy?

[@808Mugen808]

Could you make a video about the Cauchy horizon?

[@gabrielwolffe]

Do you suppose a naked singularity could be created artificially by concentrating a large quantity of matter or energy in a ring or sphere with a radius larger than its Schwarzchild radius? I just assume that the singularity would be at the object's center of mass while the material making the singularity would be outside the singularity's event horizon, making if visible and thus "naked." I thought I heard about this idea in a Science News Daily article but I can't seem to find it now. Or am I totally off-base?

[@rja7420]

I heard of a different bet Hawking made having to do with a magazine subscription. It seems naked has been a theme for some time.

[@MrKago1]

One of the things that determines the distance between the event horizon and the singularity is the rate at which it spins. the faster it spins the closer the event horizon is to the singularity. This supposedly what limits the rate of rotation of a black hole. I wonder if a naked singularity could be spinning infinitely fast. then would it really be spinning at all (the effect is has one space around it and its magnetic field)?

[@georgelastrapes9259]

Are there points in space, or planckons? How does a point (anyway) go from finite to infinite when there is no number such that that number is larger than any real, smallef than any infinity.

[@spiderlandmemes8699]

I have 2 questions I hope someone can help me with. 1) can a type 3 civilization measure the black hole gravity? Or is it proven that its infinite? 2) what if the singularity is real and it has all the properties of black holes and the black part of this orb is a stored information as the string theory suggests?

[@mk_rexx]

Black hole gravity is not infinite though, it's just really intense on account of the really huge density. It can calculated with the Law of Gravitation

[@spiderlandmemes8699]

@@mk_rexx I definitely forgot about comment 😹. But thanks

[@Ladyoftheroundtable]

I have a lot questions here. Like what would a naked singualarity look like? being a point of mass it is neccessarily smaller than it's swartschield radius. Are they hot? Could we detect them? Would they behave in the same ways as a black hole?