We Were Wrong! Black Hole Singularities Don't Actually Exist!

[@bxdanny]

This shouldn't surprise anyone. As Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out, "singularities" just indicate places where our mathematical descriptions break down. Physical quantities can't really become infinite. Which is to say, singularities simply don't exist in the real world. They only exist in mathematical models. When they do, it indicates that the model isn't perfect.

[@selkirkwildlife9426]

Yes, Hossenfelder this, hossenfelder that... no big bang, no singularities, no religion too! Say Einschtein one more time... :)

[@shawnpaquette5835]

Yet Quantum Mechanics works perfectly fine and accounts for singularity. Interesting. How was the universe formed if there was no Big Bang from a singularity then? I'll wait while you research a new theory.

[@xiangliuthefox3071]

After around 10^¹⁰⁰ Numbers become basically ''infinite'' and no matter what they get so big spamming 9 millions of times is the only way to get to a trillionth the way there either they're really infinite. Or a incredibly Fat reality breaking number has been created you could go faster then light speed or at by inertia a Starship traveling 50% light speed carrying another Star ship at that same speed= 1 light speed the only way to good faster then light is get half way there or more but not surpass it. But then after surpass it. This in itself could and probably will change the way we think about physics. If it's been talked about before to bad.

[@TanaBaka]

Weren't black holes themselves considered to be only mathematical, until we observed them? How does that stop singularities from being real?

[@Ginto_O]

so all mass that black holes consume becomes hawking radiation?

[@gashyrawr]

Singularities are just a mathematical placeholder for until we (probably never will) find out what's actually going on in there.

[@loganshaw4527]

Lol the ending of the video a star time capsule.

[@jacobruiz97]

Its probably just a planck-size, planck-density concentration of all the mass that constitutes the black hole.

[@curt62208]

No, it's not a metaphorical place holder till man finds a better theory! You just made that up! when the science end in infinity it means physics as we know and understand it breaks down! No longer applies. I thought you were a man of science not pseudoscience/junk science!

[@curtcoller3632]

Correct

[@KountKalergi]

@@jacobruiz97 No, it needs a zero sum of size and density so to the reduction of the state vector occurs.

[@ArcanePath360]

Next week: "WE WERE WRONG ABOUT BEING WRONG!"

[@Its.A.Me.Mario.1985]

Lol. They'll stay wrong then, too. 😁

[@themosaicshow]

happens

[@Cd5ssmffan]

these theories were accepted before you were born goofball

[@kronoscamron7412]

believe me friend , its a good thing, proves the are objective.

[@Its.A.Me.Mario.1985]

@@kronoscamron7412 No, it doesn't. It's just a show for people who won't dig deeper than the surface.

[@bztube888]

I think it's the general consensus that singularity doesn't exist in Physics, the fact that our equations predict a singularity is just a sign that they are no longer valid and we need better equations.

[@TehAntiSpammer]

No, if the equations on mass and gravity were wrong we wouldn't be able to accurately send probes to other planets as we are able to now... Whats missing is the ability to know whats really happening inside of a black hole since unlike other celestial bodies they emit 0 usable information.

[@tdm-uo9sc]

Or maybe nothingness actually exists. Maybe it’s nothing, and there is no equation or school of thought that escapes its prevalence. Nothing is unfathomable, yet itself exists. Nonexistence - Exists

[@legitbeans9078]

Is this AI voice based on the kurzgesagt guy

[@gamerkarl1]

Gotta be bro 1000%

[@lesleyesau]

Was thinking the same thing!!😂😂😂

[@alxxz]

I don't think so, I've been listening to this voice for years and in other channels as well. Didn't even know it was AI.

[@stew675]

The exact same voice is heard in videos on this channel uploaded 6 years ago. Not everything is AI (yet).

[@alxxz]

@@legitbeans9078 I mean this voice was used many years ago before AI and Chatgtp were a thing, so this might be an actual person.

[@mydogbrian4814]

> Every black hole is a *Sergeant Schultz variant.* When inside it; "I know nothing!"

[@stewarttomkinson3356]

🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@jkody]

The most underrated replay in science!

[@V0W4N]

the amount of AI science slop on youtube is insane

[@wout123100]

there are a few , only a handfull or worthy channels, this is not one of them.

[@What2make2day]

PBS space time explain it better

[@The_Joshuan_Empire]

sciencephile the ai. i rest my case.

[@1axcohn1]

@@What2make2day, if better means a stronger British accent.

[@anatolydyatlov963]

@@1axcohn1 Nope. In this instance, better means better. Besides, Matt is from Australia

[@sbalfre]

Who knows, perhaps our entire universe exists inside one of these spinning black holes

[@mydogbrian4814]

> If that is so, then point in the direction to the singularity at the very center of it in the sky. Towards which every galaxy would be rushing. 🙄👈

[@sbalfre]

@@mydogbrian4814 have you not heard of The Great Attractor?

[@Adaephonable]

It does not.

[@sbalfre]

@@Adaephonable how do you know?

[@ze5os427]

one random theory I came up with is that black holes are actually quark stars that are so dense with quarks that even light can't escape

[@FuzzyBrick1]

That can't be a new perspective... When I first learned that time slows around a black hole, it was my understanding that the star never went away, it was just frozen in time and if the star is frozen in time then everything entering it would freeze in time as well... (From our perspective that is.) I imagine from its perspective it collapsed and went Nova in an instant and the entire lifetime of the universe flashed in that blink, and the end result would be a new big bang.

[@Kai-Lo]

Personally I believe black holes are literally holes in space-time. This may be caused by a singularity or at the point when they are made they literally poke a hole in space-time. Go through them and you’ll be outside of physical reality and Time.

[@louieb875]

Hmmm interesting

[@Adaephonable]

That makes no sense.

[@madwlad799]

how would you exist in no space and not time? I don't think anything could enter a void in spacetime, also this would ruin your hole concept with no space time when spacetime can easily enter

[@josephjucker5620]

You could get away with calling them a pit in spacetime

[@jamesreah861]

People who would choose to die or live by black hole... like below

[@tristanfarmer9031]

The singularly isn't a place, its an event in time you experience.

[@buckmurdock2025]

Does time flow back, is it non-existent or is it moving forward again? Or is there a forth space dimension perhaps? If time stands still, there is no event to experience. To experience something implies the flow of time.

[@tristanfarmer9031]

@@buckmurdock2025 It's a theory. Thanks to the intense gravity at the singularity, space and time switch places. Which would mean it's an event, not a location.

[@dan2007rs]

A ghost region of space/time.

[@ericnorman6391]

@@tristanfarmer9031 This explanation for singularities is so novel to me- I’ve never heard of the phenomena where space and time swap, so technically you’re experiencing your end not because of “what” is ending you and where you are, but because time ceases, or is slowed down infinitely

[@ericnorman6391]

I’m explaining to my friends with genuine excitement 😂 it’s such a radical concept to wrap your mind around.

[@Chasewimerxoxo]

You know there’s someone crazy enough to fly into one, find him, send it brah

[@SwanRonsonDonnyJepp]

I'll go..... Nothing better to do 💪😁💪

[@joe-qs1yf]

yea me 2 no probs i sniff any black hole brah

[@ulftnightwolf]

The event horizon causally disconnects the inside from the outside. No information can be exchanged not even light.

[@Chasewimerxoxo]

@@SwanRonsonDonnyJepp god speed brother 🫡

[@Alex_Mitchell]

@@SwanRonsonDonnyJepp As long as you can travel at the speed of light it will only take you 1,560 years to get there. Let us know how it goes...

[@Neidhardt.der.Blitzschnelle]

The video starts at 7:51 for experts. A ring singularity was something that was seen as purely pseudoscience, but here we are, and I am excited if any method of detection of ring singularity is discovered!

[@wojtekmazur2416]

Thanks! I hate when videos start with how humans invented fire before getting to the point.

[@CandidDate]

I was busy falling into a black hole, then a physicist told me that they don't exist, and I was saved forever from death!

[@ParanormalWeather660]

If nonexistence was not real... Then how would nonexistence be existence? It literally doesn't make sense... Just like the void... In the void nothing exists inside them...

[@grawss]

"Hey we were wrong about black holes, so let me begin with a bunch of conjecture and unprovable stuff that hasn't been proven wrong yet."

[@RepeatLawrence]

exactly what i was thinking.

[@ThereIsOnlyOneRandom]

my whole existence is a theory, and probably we're already a past

[@bwxmoto]

I've always thought black holes are just much more dense neutron stars, basically "hadron stars" or "quark stars". Or whatever quarks are made up of. Maybe they're just stars that have further broken down neutrons into the parts that make up neutrons.

[@imretakacs1043]

I agree. If you calculate the size of a quark-gluon plazma you can find that in case of 3-4 times of Sun mass the quark-gluon plasma radius will be smaller, than its Schwartzsild radius. Until approximately 1,5 Sun mass: white dwarfs, 1,5-3 Sun mass neutron star. The bigger neutron stars contains more quark-gluon plasma. Approximatelly from 3 Sun mass: black hole, with finite mass, finite size as a real physical object. No singularity.

[@rehakmate]

And I always thought that a star is still under (in) the black hole, you just cant see it because light cant escape

[@KountKalergi]

Still, the Wave function would not collapse under down conditions, albeit very extreme.

[@KountKalergi]

@@rehakmate No, the Stellar mass trully collapses in the space-time frame.

[@bromanceb0y]

Welcome back. Been waiting for your new video every day!

[@mananshah2325]

Did physicists actually think they existed? I feel like every physicist I've listened to says that it is a place where our theories fall apart because you are essentially dividing by zero - trying to use Einstein's equations to describe things at a quantum level, or using quantum theory to explain gravitational effects. Most people thought that it didn't actually exist; we just needed a combined theory of gravity and quantum mechanics to explain what actually existed.

[@TeacherAziotou]

Sometimes, I even wonder if we aren't already inside a specific type of black hole.

[@shawnpaquette5835]

That's my theory of the Big Bang. It was a black hole (singularity) explosion and we are potentially living inside a universe birthed from a black hole.

[@J.R.MusicProductions]

One could technically argue that the observable universe is a kind of blackhole since you'd need to exceed the speed of light to exit it. That "boundary" at which things are moving away from us faster than light could be seen as an event horizon of sorts. Only difference is it would have no central point, and also the event horizon would be a result of other things moving outward, not us moving inward. So like an inverse blackhole of sorts. edit: And also different points would see the event horizon at different locations, since from any given location it appears as if everything is expanding away from you.

[@ResidentOfDunwich]

I think you’re right. That’s why we experience time and the universe has a horizon.

[@kuro.editzzz]

We'll find out in the after life

[@jrno93]

I think we are the byproduct of one, one that was once a multidimensional star and black holes we have in our universe are just tiny versions of what exist on a multidimensional scale. Like a firework. The ones in our universe are the little sparks when the firework exhaust all it's energy while the main fireworks is the multidimensional star in a super multidimensional multiverse filled with stars of life that constantly explode into contained universe bubbles where life could or could not exist.

[@danvzare6201]

"When a particle-antiparticle pair forms near the event horizon, one of them falls into a black hole while the other one escapes. And by doing so, the free particles steals energy from the black hole. If you give it enough time, a black hole would evaporate completely. But if there's nothing left behind, where does this infinite singularity go then?" Seriously? That's like me saying: "I have a cake. People keep taking slices from it until I there's no cake left. So where did my cake go?" For those that can't figure it out, the energy that the black hole is made from (black holes are just highly compressed matter, and matter is just highly compressed energy) simply spreads outward. It's called entropy. My explanation is undoubtedly oversimplified, but that's the gist of it.

[@JF-cn3cz]

Nice graphics on the black holes Good video. 👌 Have some questions, but this was one of my favorite black hole videos yet I have many questions though - I (an armchair scientist) always toyed with the idea that the big bang was a black hole that was from another place. The theoretical "white hole" was the big bang. Thoughts?

[@thealterego1777]

I believe a white hole produced part of our universe in which we are existing. Just like black holes exist, white holes should as well, at the edge of the universe, expanding the "observable universe"

[@charlesmiller8107]

No matter how much I think about this I keep coming up with infinity. I just feel like there has to be an infinity somewhere that just loops over and over that somehow results in the emergence of a universe. I can't wrap my head around it.

[@jamesmkay]

I think that black holes are mostly compressed empty space. So much space gets collected that it snowballs out of control. Traveling through compressed space would feel normal because your own spacetime blends with it’s surroundings, (you would stretch and compress without noticing) but watching someone travel through it would look like they’re slowing down. They have to traverse more space the closer to the black hole they get, so the closer they get, the further away it seems. Eventually the space is so compressed that it’s basically another universe in there, but theres no way out because of the way compressed space compresses time as well

[@ZMAN_420]

Great Video! 👍🏻

[@vibaloptics]

Schwartzschild is a German word and means Blackshield

So what. It's the name of the guy who postulated it.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

@ correct....people looking for meaning where there is none...like a smile on a dog...

[@vibaloptics]

@@ashleyobrien4937 to give knowledge is free!! and to not want to learn or correct it in your mind, is atleast selfish!! ( in some languages there is always a meaning behind every word, every name.)

[@vibaloptics]

@ it should be pronounced the right way! if pronunciation is right, some will automatically know he was a German scientist

[@dan2007rs]

Arnold Schwartzchild

[@Clover-qz8nl]

This makes so much sense 🫶 black hole physics is so fascinating and amazing and thanks for sharing this wonderful content 🍀

[@kombasanpracka]

It´s f-ing painful to hear repeatedly say: "shwartz child" instead of the proper way "shwartz shield" (written phonetically).

[@SurefireSentinel]

Depends how pedantic you want to be. German name, German man. I’m sure he’d pronounce it something like ‘shvartzsheild’ :)

[@Reiga89]

OMG, thank you for pointing it out. I hate it too.

[@Reiga89]

@@SurefireSentinelwhen it come to pronaounciation in german, very…

[@thomasherzog86]

"shwahrts shillt" would be the correct way.

[@destroya3303]

That's like being mad at Mexicans for pronouncing Jesus "wrong".

[@ranixcz4087]

finally someone who also hate word infinity and singularity for its simplicity

[@digitalartist779]

Inspiration for this video: Veritasium

[@szaszm_]

Doubt it, it takes more than 3 days to make a video like this. More like the KZbin algorithm recommending this to people who wanted the Veritassium video, because it registered viewers as interested in videos about black holes.

[@juliavixen176]

​@@szaszm_ I could believe that if this video wasn't obviously AI (LLM) generated sludge with a synthesized voice narrated over common stock footage. This video could totally have been generated in less than a day of effort to cash in on a trending topic.

[@szaszm_]

@@juliavixen176 If it's AI, it fooled me. Maybe I was too tired and not paying attention.

[@emcosh]

@@szaszm_ you can understand it when it pronounces Schwarzschild as "shvaarts chield" instead of "shvaarts shilt" as it would be pronounced. And the name is too important for someone who makes blackhole videos to mispronounce.

[@glomerol8300]

@@juliavixen176 What are we even doing on the internet, then? Shouldn't we be communicating face-to-face and living in tents or caves?

[@axle.student]

A singularity is nothing more than a infinitely small (invisible) geometric mathematical point at the center intersect of the radii of a pseudo spherical geometry. The matter that attempts to occupy that point at the same space-time is a separate thing. The earth (and any other object) has a mathematical singularity at it center and is nothing special in and of itself :)

[@ELXABER]

Wait, so dividing by zero and assuming matter can compress infinitely is incorrect? 🤯 🤦‍♂

[@DragonKingGaav]

Divid by zero and get cake!

[@Carcinogenic2]

It's just that our theories still have a long way to go to fully explain the compression. As we've seen nothing we take for granted can exist forever in the state it's in but around black holes things get so complicated that we still lack, yes, the knowledge about spacetime itself to comprehend what goes inside one. And yes, as matter is a manifestation of concentrated energy with certain properties, all of that has to go somewhere when it falls past an event horizon. The most prominent that shows itself is mass, which keeps distorting spacetime and creating the paths out and inside the black holes.

[@smileyp4535]

If anything it just shows the universe has higher dimensions

[@ELXABER]

@@Carcinogenic2 Makes sense to me. Whatever was there, is still there, and whatever energy is there, is also still there - laws of conservation. If you compress a piece of coal, it doesn't vanish, it turns into a diamond. The reason the halo (event horizon effect) is a U and not just an O is due to time dilation, and possibly the reason it appears black, the same as the warp effect of light during an eclipse. If gravity is strong enough to not allow light to escape, which is somewhat illogical, the more reasonable conclusion is it's splitting the particle and antiparticle.

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

You can't divide by zero. 0,000...1 is ok, but not the 0,000...

[@CensoredComment-os8py]

I did some research on this. The singularity does exist. The core has been collapsed down to an infinite point. In fact the "core" is still collapsing as we speak. It's waay past the quantum level. So technically there is nothing there at the singularity but warped space time. Once you past the event horizon and move toward the singularity, you start approaching the speed of light. Space and time are so warped and twisted in the black hole, that you are no longer moving to a WHERE (the singularity), but a WHEN (when you get to the singularity) Here's where it gets weird. The closer you move towards the singularity? The more and more time slows down for you, AND the longer it will take you to get TO the singularity. Try to imagine you as traveling from the number 3 (Even Horizon) to 4 (Singularity). You have 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, and so on. ONCE you hit 3.14 (Pi) time gets slower and slower. 3.1415, 3.14558346564, 3.1499999 CLOSER to 4, but never ever reach 3.15 let a lone 4. The CLOSER you get to 4 ......... the longer its going to take you to get there. For those watching you? It will take BILLIONS of years for you to move 1 mile towards the center. But to you? Billions of years would have passed in a few min. You have become the frozen fish in the lake. To us? It took all winter for it to swim across the lake being frozen for 3 of those months. But to the fish? It doesn't even remember being frozen. MONTHS have passed, but to the fish it's the same day it was frozen.

[@davidtuchscherer6276]

Your research is based on theories, and those theories are based on einstein's equations, which we know to be incomplete. The models will change with new evidence, and what was described as inside black holes will likely be described differently too. Here's a hint on why there's no singularity in black holes: a singularity is a mathematical point, but a point can't turn. Yet still black holes do turn, and that was proven through observation. Some people suggested the infinitely thin disc turning, but it's just tape on a crack on the wall.

[@i.c.9343]

●So i belive that there are not exit to it like white holes? ●So it is not like a "door" to a parallel universe? ●if this is true, why collecting matter makes the size of the space time anomaly grow? ●it make sanse about gravity increase, but not the size increase. ●does this theory change our view on the geometry of our universe? Many questions, hopefully when we will run a powerfull ai on quantum computer all this questions will be explained before the ai destroy us 😅

[@junoomarseda]

i think it is becz the equation says that it is correct that there are so called blackhole and we can point it easily, like ok, it is a star, it is over, then its gravity collapse so it like condensed into singularity. the same equation also says that it is correct if there are whitehole... but wtf the whitehole is.. al its properties are the opposite of black hole has. but no one can point what actually it is for now. and this make we take this stuffs, the blackhole and its soulmate the whitehole, into many prediction, especially the white one. it is exist, it is not. it could be the big bang itself which is silly to say it. it could be paired and connected to blackhole, and even the pair has a doraemon door at the center of their singularity point. and maybe they shared one singularity point which is silly but it is not actually silly if the white one actually live in another side of universe, if we agree that universe is paralel.. and so on and so on 😂 yes thats right hope those crazy fast computer stuff is avalable soon to count what is exactly happened out there ...

[@kaleidoscopeofficial8]

Very informative 👏 and creative

[@scotthullinger4684]

Uh, no. NO - It's not as if the entire scientific community among astronomers has decided that what has always been known about black holes is now somehow not factual after all. Nope -

[@Snowwie88]

0:50 - "When a large star 10 to 20 times more massive than the sun"....... so this does not happen to stars with 30, 50, 100 or 150 solar masses? Singularities cannot have 0 dimension. If they did they would tear the fabric of space/time apart, and if that happened then it would loose it's gravitational grip on it's surrounding. How big is a singularity? Well, a neutron squeezed in a neutron star is said to be 10^-15m in size. Quark particles, that are the building blocks of neutrons are only 10^-18m. There are 3 quarks (or 6 depending on who you ask - up/down or 6 flavors) in a neutron. I am not that good in these calculations but imagine a neutron star is 10 kilometers in size. Then the difference between neutrons and quarks could indicate the size of the singularity, or just better said "The Black Hole's core". Lets see, 10^-15m = 0.00000000000001m vs 10^-18m 0.00000000000000001m, would yield a size difference of 200%. If we assume a neutron star is 10km in size then the core of a black hole would then be 50 meters in diameter. Solely quark particles. Of course this is based on just one particle, but the percentages stay the same. A neutron star consists only of neutrons and in a Black Hole the gravity even overcomes the forces that keep a neutron intact and starts squeezing it's components all directly to each other.

[@panavgaming1050]

Damnnn this is literally the point everything is a theory

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

you dont understand what a theory is. if i drop you from 100 ft gravity still works despite being a "theory" . theory =/= hypothesis

[@Bob-qk2zg]

Any competent physicist will tell you physics is a model. Just a model.

[@legitbeans9078]

You dont know what a theory is or what the word literally means. Go back and read some books

[@oboropro]

No need to insult the guy.​@legitbeans9078

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@thezone5840 “suppose”that’s where you make the mistake. What evidence have you that you’re quantum theory has been tested enough to say that?

[@riannair7101]

Due to time infinite dilatation inside of black hole light appear to us be dark , time is no more for light be visible to us but light still exist inside black hole ... only is frozen in time for us when we watch from outside black hole !

[@shawns0762]

There is no black holes. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein 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 G.R. predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star 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." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate that we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves/dark matter. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has recently been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. There can only be clarity in astronomy if the concept of singularities is discarded. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

[@alxxz]

So what was that they photographed 2 years ago of Sagittarius A Star and that other ring thing?

[@brandonrobinson3829]

I viewed your whole channel and you posed no sources and it's five videos of you repeated that same long paragraph of nonsense and your crap was easily debunked. Go back to school shawn unless you got an actual source for those claims.

[@shawns0762]

@@alxxz The shape of a galaxy is common in nature. From atoms to our solar system the overwhelming majority of the mass is in the center. The same must be true for galaxies. Where there is an astronomical quantity of mass there is an astronomical quantity of energy. 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. The night sky should be lit up from the galactic center, but it isn't. The modern explanation for this is because gravitational forces are so strong there that not even light can escape, even though the mass of the photon is zero. The original and correct explanation is because the mass there is dilated relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself. There is no way to "photograph" what exists at the galactic center. The interference alone, dilation alone or gravitational lensing alone would make that virtually impossible. We are receiving radiation from the galactic center, but it comes from all directions. At least a component of the CMB must be dilated mass/energy from the galactic center. If the WMAP satellite was positioned outside the bounds of our galaxy it would record a background radiation of near zero.

[@alxxz]

@@shawns0762 Very interesting. But the 1st photo they took of that ring thing was supposed to be from a black hole outside our Galaxy. And then one year later they took a similar photo that was supposed to be of Sagittarius A Star black hole from the center of our Galaxy. How is that explained?!

[@shawns0762]

@@alxxz The phenomenon of dilation would predict that we cannot see light from the galactic center because relative to an Earthbound observer that mass/energy is smeared through spacetime

[@cotton.blep.]

YAYYYYYYY NEW VIDEO!!!!!!!!!🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@fuffoon]

Evidently, we don't know shit. That's a good name.

[@ronniabati]

Wouldn’t the observer falling into the black hole see the Galaxy rapidly evolve into eventual “end of the universe” due to the time dilation? And, wouldn’t the black hole likewise be evolving by “evaporate away” due to Hawking radiation? So, the observer would never truly reach the “singularity”? 😊

[@artkid101.]

If light goes inside a black hole doesn't that mean it won't be dark inside it

[@SwedishBroManDude]

I wonder if the photons would even behave like they do outside black holes while inside a blackhole.

[@selfactualizer2099]

light would exist in all directions at all times, thats what he meant at the end, as for brightness, that would depend on how many light particles are being scattered everywhere

[@justincase5272]

Kerr gets more things right than other astrophysicists.

[@thnkblu.2206]

Wait... you mean the imaginary thing we never proved isn't real?? The real question we should be asking ourselves is how did we get duped so badly for so long..

[@floristfindspeace]

but that’s the beauty of science. we can continue to grow and learn and recalculate

[@deanhotter6054]

Out to infinity, and back? What sends them back?

[@JasonRule-1]

Since matter can't travel at or beyond the speed of light within our universe, black hole contents spinning faster than the speed of light would technically have to be outside of our universe.

[@hercar20xx5]

Yep! As far as we know black holes might even have different physics inside

[@docblade3270]

Well, if black holes are a place where the normal theories crashes, is not unthinkable that it can do some things impossible here!

[@videostorageforstudio]

Fascinating exploration of black holes, shedding light on the complex nature of these celestial phenomena. The discussion around the concept of singularity and the different theories explaining black holes is truly mind-bending. The explanation of Schwarzschild black holes and the intriguing details about event horizons, Hawking radiation, and Kerr black holes offer a deep dive into the mysteries of these cosmic entities.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

Here's another reason there are no infinites/singularities, consider this-if black holes can form a central point of ever increasing mass, the singularity, then why is it that black holes have different sizes ? and do not shrink when not actively feeding ? it's simple, because whatever matter is crushed down into, be it neutrons or quarks or whatever, there reaches a point whereby they cannot be crushed any further and thus we end up with growing black holes, a singularity is utterly illogical, the proof is staring us right in the face !

[@shawnpaquette5835]

Black holes do in fact shrink. They are not "ever increasing". That's a myth

[@cretinousswine8234]

Black holes do shrink. It's literally on this video. It's called Hawking radiation.

[@shawnpaquette5835]

@cretinousswine8234 Did you hear they recently simulated a black hole and found new Particles being born out of the Hawking Radiation! It's been confirmed! Black holes create new Particles out of "nothing" (previously collected information expelled as wait for it.....Hawking Radiation!) 😁😁

[@ChidinhoFernandez]

the human mind is not yet capable of understanding this, we should understand our own brains fully first

[@Bethos1247-Arne]

looks like another AI created BS video.

[@MrRizzyWizzy]

Did you expect first hand pictures from an astronaut's camera?

[@matthiasimboden654]

@@pritzilpalazzo not really. basically black holes don't have a singularity because a singularity is a infinite amount of matter in a place infinite small. but basically black holes are not infinite dense and small. it's just so unbelieveably much that you can say it's infinite and you wouldn't be to far off. theoretically you could calculate the size and the density in the "singularity" and it wouldn't be infinite. but basically for us it's impossible to do the calculations. but it's important to say that black holes don't have real a real singularity. if they all would have that it would mean every black hole is same size same mass and everything just the same. but as we all know there are stellar black holes with mass of a few 1000 sun masses and there are supermassive black holes with mass of billions of suns. it's the same for the size. basically the sigularity of a black hole is a finite amount of matter in a finite amount of space. it's just so extreme that you can say it's infinite. after all black holes are very hard to understand

[@Bethos1247-Arne]

@@MrRizzyWizzy audio seems to be generated by text-to-speech, combined with an incoherent script which is not getting to the point.

[@hyperbaroque]

Yes, and purposefully intended to defend a dying theory which is gravitons.

[@hyperbaroque]

​@@matthiasimboden654So you theorize. { And so you also have a lot of trouble wording concisely in order to get to the point. }

[@dumiicris2694]

nothing is infinite means movement has a reason is that hard to understand? nothing happens without a reason a base.. and the reason is everywhere right? but how does it work? think and experiment and one day u will be right what i mean is u can't imagine it does not exist. if u ask me the one think that we can consider a base is energy exchange (equilibrum)

[@MrMelonsz]

It’s almost like inside a black whole, it’s its own mini-universe, bending space-time to the absolute limit, holding unimaginable amounts of energy and matter. One may even wonder… if space-time *has* a *limit…*

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

no. I answered the question. There is no limit to space, that literally makes no sense under any known model. its flat (the shape of the universe)

[@tonyisnotdead]

@Ariel-om5fh who said multiverse?

[@theeddorian]

@Ariel-om5fh But so is the BB speculative nonsense. You can create a mathematical physics for any speculation you want, and make it so that you can derive everyday mechanics from it. Hoyle and Narliakr did so, as did Pratt, Mach, and others. The current LCDM model is based on the assumption that cosmological red shift is caused by space expanding. But that is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, since a photon, once emitted can't "lose" energy without it going some place, effectively altering the photon into a different photon. As an explanation, it also has the problem of violating everyday thermodynamics at the same time it screws with QM.

[@rubixn00b71]

no its just a concentrated ball of mass.

[@hercar20xx5]

The universe having a flat shape would mean its like you said infinite however how does a space grow to an infinite area in a finite amount of time (assuming the Big Bang is real)

[@DanielEngsvang]

If not even light can escape a Black hole it must mean that ALL light that has ever gone into it are still trying to "get out" but hold in Place by the massive pull?. Cheers

[@paul119]

Only its data, blackhole is like an SSD, but for us is like we forget the passworld and cant get into it

[@jaygeetee3364]

I would be very refreshing to hear one of these “experts” admit that they don’t have a clue.

[@TomyDayos]

Humans are too pridefull for that. There is nothing anormal in having bias, its something that all humans have, only very few can actally perceive their own biases. They know that their judgement is biased and full of logic leaps. Its that all humans see thenselves as smarter and more logical and more good than the majority. The brain is programed to do that.

[@SidMajors]

They do. You just don't.

[@TomyDayos]

I agree with you.

[@jaygeetee3364]

@@SidMajors care to elaborate?

[@anatolydyatlov963]

It's very common, and if you ever took the time to sit in on their lectures, you'd witness it firsthand. I've lost count of how many times my professor said "We don't know." You can hear similar admissions on countless science-focused YT channels if academia isn't your cup of tea. This particular one, however, strays quite far from genuine scientific discourse.

[@rubengonzalez2473]

I feel that a black hole is a connection between realices. Matter is acelerated to a diferent dimention .

[@johnb1145]

Singularities sound like something contradicting the cosmic limit.

[@rclrd1]

"Singulariy" is a _mathematical_ concept that has no meaning for _physical_ reality. The "event horizon" and the "central sinularity" are features of the "empty space" solutions of Einstein's equations. But he interiorof of a collapsing star is _not_ "empty space"!

[@johnb1145]

@@rclrd1 But couldn't it be just an object of maximum density instead, a cosmic density limit, much like the "speed of light" being the cosmic speed limit? The density of such an object would surpass that of a neutron strar, but it would still be a positive number, albeit you could not condense it any further as the energy needed to do so would surpass whatever energy mass can provide, so it simply grows in size.

[@carlossaraiva8213]

This was a very good presentation.

[@ferret9263]

Kid: Mom I want to watch Kurzgesagt Mom: We have Kurzgesagt at home Kurzgesagt at home:

[@TheTylerCathey]

so our universe could be a big black hole in another universe, and everything we know is the star that created it

[@neridega]

I believe when star collapse, they destroy matter inside star, during explosion what makes atoms without electrons and u get nucleus matter who is a lot smaller. where cant stand electrons and u get hole where is no light :)

[@stromboli183]

How does Hawking radiation 'steal' energy from the black hole? The particle pairs of which one escapes and one falls into the black hole, statistically I'd say 50% of the time the one falling into the black hole has positive energy, and 50% the one escaping has positive energy. So that should even out, right?

[@juliavixen176]

Because the "virtual particle falls in" explanation that gets endlessly repeated is _not_ actually how it works. (This whole video sounds like it was written by an AI language model.) So... in QFT the vacuum can never have zero amplitude. The minimum possible energy is plus or minus half of Planck's Constant... because of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle... because of waves... A wave can't have a sharp edge where it suddenly drops from "waving" to "not waving". To cut the ends of the wave off in space you will create (must require) a bunch of higher and lower frequency waves with a Gausian distribution of amplitudes centered around the main frequency of your original wave. This is the same reason why JPEG images have stripped blocks along the edge of two high contrast colors (and MP3s have ringing artifacts around suddenly loud sounds). Anyway, because of continuity, if a black hole punches a hole out of a particular (usualy EM) field, and the field must ramp down to zero amplitude at the edge of the hole. That's going make higher frequency waves outside of the hole. (This is easier to see with a picture (or math) than describing it in English words.) Those new "ripples" in the field are called "Hawking Radiation". The wavelength is proportional to the size of the black hole's event horizon, and it's only observable at a distance at least twice the radius of the black hole's event horizon. (You can't see it if you're falling into the black hole.) It's very similar to Unruh Radiation when things experience proper acceleration. In a certain sense the black hole is accelerating away from a distant observer (or vice versa).

[@kooky45]

Another reason the particle-pair explanation doesn't work is that if a particle and anti-particle annihilate inside the event horizon then that produces energy which must stay within the event horizon too, and from Einstein we know that energy is equivalent to mass, so the black hole actually gains mass. In fact, everything falling into a black hole increases its mass no matter what it is.

[@runitonce7791]

No physicist would agree with you so I'd say no

[@stromboli183]

@@juliavixen176 I more or less follow what you're saying, but I still don't understand how this results in the 'energy stealing' phenomenon?

[@stromboli183]

@@kooky45 Right, yes that makes sense. Or is there also something like negative mass (antimatter) that annihilates with regular matter to zero mass? Either way I don't see how this can result in the slow evaporization of black holes.

[@breakingtwitting]

I'm certain black hole contains itself the key to discovery how to we would be able actually to travel interplanetary and traverse between galaxies

[@topentine]

Thanks for breaking it down… people think it’s a void but not really… it’s a phenomenon that warps the fabric of space in an unusual manner…

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

its not unusual, its the base state of the universe

[@topentine]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss but like the video explained, nothing warps the fabric like black whole…

[@rubixn00b71]

naw, its just a big magnet

[@topentine]

@@rubixn00b71 it’s not a magnet… the fact that it has a force field doesn’t make it a magnet…🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@adamrhome8055]

A singularity... sounds very much like an observed phenomenon that can be neither measured nor understood. The idea of Blackholes having mass (that is empirically measurable) is curious. Blackholes by nature are inherently black & thus are invisible (or very difficult to detect) when set against the back drop of space. When Blackholes are observed, their light (& a spectrum of other forms of radiation) is noticed only as a result of the Blackhole "devouring" a neighboring star, planet, or galaxy & thus that energy is released. We suspect the galaxy being devoured by a blackhole to have mass & reason since mass controls mass & the Blackhole is in control, the Blackhole must also have mass, but how much? The mass of a blackhole is determined by calculating the mass of the objects surrounding a blackhole. Setting aside the philosophical argument between the difference of what it means to control vs. to possess a thing, it's interesting that the mass of the galaxy observed being devoured has already been affected by the gravity, spin, & thus pull of the Blackhole as the mass of an object is a result of its motion i.e. E= mc2. So, with both bodies exerting a pull on one another to become one, at which point are the two bodies identified & measured as separate individual bodies? At this stage in astrophysics, this question does hint at the chicken or the egg... but if galaxies & blackholes are to be identified as separate entities & not a collection of matter existing in time moments before its inevitable meeting with a Blackhole, then this answer is vital as we as inhabitants of a galaxy, are always moving, always going somewhere, always in motion but to where?Theory would suppose identifying & measuring the mass, speed, luminosity etc. of a galaxy & of a blackhole independently prior to their collision, but despite the vast distances of these objects in space, again the problem of accurately calculating mass is foiled by their individual attraction as such that when a galaxy, planet, or star has become a predicable target of the Blackhole, the Blackhole has already exerted an influence on the object to affect its mass, spin, & charge. As impossible as this task sounds, to accurately weight the mass of a blackhole, would require a measurement of weight prior to the "devouring" & after to even assume that blackholes gain mass by devouring celestial objects. Given the fact this devouring process can take eons to unfold, many more theories will have come & gone before we can support or contrast any theory with empirical evidence. Oh, & FYI, if light can't escape a blackhole (or rather the medium of space that light uses to travel through) then how can radio waves escape i.e. the weakest of all waves on the spectrum? Due to the energy behind gamma rays, I might get how gamma waves might escape a blackhole, but radio waves too? Something else has to be going on as these are our current methods of detection.

[@namtr0]

Summary of video, Bunch of over simplified small scale examples trying to explain it. Then saying you can't use simple small scale examples to explain it. Translation, they know nothing and it's all BS for now.

[@juliavixen176]

This video is AI generated nonsense... you realize that, right? It's a bunch of words randomly stuck together.

[@matthiasimboden654]

​@@juliavixen176 even if it would be made by AI, everything said in this video was correct / can't be proven wrong. i don't know why you all have a problem with this.

[@Oppositeatom]

A singularity is an event in time , not a place or object.

[@xgcwrought3346]

This is what I've been saying for years that back holes are more like water whirl pools

[@GIVIDIOS]

I say just send a space ship or a satellite close to a black hole and see what happens 🤔 it doesn't hurt to try

[@teemuleppa3347]

We would Be extinct before spaceship reaches nearest blackhole

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

yes it does. it wastes millions of dollars

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@Ariel-om5fh speak for yourself,, im not some gen z soyboy that thinks we should all end. In fact we WILL reach the stars long before we are wiped out

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@@teemuleppa3347 nah, thats some gen z cucsoy thinking right there

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@Ariel-om5fh facts. Maybe it’s my BBC that’s why your mom loves me 💪🏾

[@Etimespace]

Yes..Star mass systems are expanding black stars which emit expanding dark energy / light 🙂

[@Moohie]

like if you didn't understand anything lol

[@williambarr3551]

Hawking Radiation is imbalanced accounting. The radiation goes out of And into the black hole, no change in black hole mass.

[@paul119]

Singluarity is not a place ..its an event in a future

[@sobreaver]

I thought of Singularities of Black Holes as a simple extreme twist of the space-time fabric like twisting a balloon.

[@Golden_SnowFlake]

At the end of the universe, all matter will be billions of light years distant, it will have billions of years to be pulled back toward a central point, reaching near light speeds, impacting all particles in front of it over and over again, till every particle is crushed into the teeniest, tiniest point. The entire universe will be like an anvil, crushing itself with every iota of force that has or ever will exist, and it will start again, as nothing will be able to get past this infinite wall of matter moving at near light speed toward that central point.

[@KaliFissure]

The event horizon is a surface like water is a surface. When the neutron star collapse it is a change of state from a aggregated collection of 10¹⁰⁰ neutrons? More? And it becomes a single object, the event horizon. A Planck energy surface. 90° to the rest of the universe.

[@adudewithlonghair5706]

Our universe is the inside of a black hole.

[@fredd-1-1]

Na końcu okaże się że żyjemy w środku czarnej dziury.

[@neotixx.]

at 9:52, where did you get that from?

[@rolandcuthbert784]

Yeah, when it comes to black holes, we don't know jack.

[@ianardeant]

singularity in our world may simply mean regularity things in that different world, something ordinary.

[@saqibullahktk]

Hi, can I get the wallpaper of the blackhole used at 1:26

[@윤건호-b3f]

singularity is in the future

[@StebseyPlaysGames]

Imagine falling into a black hole… Falling into it with your back facing towards the black hole.. What you would see as you plummet towards your death is all of the visible stars in the universe moving faster and faster as you witness the ‘speeding up of time’ around you in an exponential manner. You will reach a certain point where all of the universe around you speeds up so quickly that you witness the end of all time in a fraction of a second as all of the stars in your vision explode almost simultaneously….. time for you has stopped as you enter the black hole…. All the time around you has sped up instantly. This phenomena is the key to understanding the curvature of space time and how it relates to consciousness (us). This proven reality is why the universe we exist in is almost certainly infinite. There is no need to invoke a magical sky daddy… Everything that has and will ever happen exists in a fixed block that one day we will be able to access. It's probable that you have no choice. All of time and everything that has and will happen already exists... given the right conditions, we can MOVE THOUGH IT ALL.

[@stewarttomkinson3356]

What is the whole galaxy is in a black hole at the center but it’s so massive. We can’t see the outer edge.

[@Altroo]

Source : A new york taxi driver.

[@gtgodbear6320]

It's just a super dense star that's so heavy that it sinks below the horizon of the fabric of space-time.

[@antitititi-fragilefragile]

If you think you can "harness energy" from a black hole you're actually inside working for it. The black hole is the only thing in the universe that consciously takes energy.

[@emmanuelp.8730]

Black holes are fstk mater factories? Responsible for universe expansion?

[@vj.joseph]

They exist. Simple as that.

[@spaceguy20_12]

I plugged in r=2gm/c^2 into desmos and it game me a graph that was two exponential curves on opposite sides, basically a black hole I think

[@MrEditor6000]

If Black Holes are a massive ultra strong gravity well, it's a trash compactor. Nothing that falls in survives or preserves any complex structural integrity. It's not a portal with a White hole out the "other end".

[@bnjm8868]

Hawking radiation comes from inside black holes and from the ripped fabric of space that defines the event horizon, not from the black hole itself. Sort of how both blood and skin would seal a fresh wound. This does not lead to black hole evaporation due to conservation. The calculations interpreted as infinity truly indicates continuity, continuous, a constant.

[@glomerol8300]

Great show as usual-- narration, sound/music & graphics, which seem AI-generated. That's good that Destiny may be leveraging it. I see one comment below disparaging it, but science shows have been using computers/computer graphics for a fairly long time. Even animations that look hand-drawn are often, if not usually, aided by computers, to say nothing of the internet, itself.

[@rajeshsharma686]

Quantum is everything ... Suppose that to a singularity as a molecular formation 😮😮😮 atar is an atom

[@wesleyrodgers886]

One scientist. One paper. 😶😶😶😶

[@PlacidDirge]

Sounds like a light show I'd enjoy if I wasn't reduced to particles before I get there.

[@adonaiblackwood]

Black holes don’t exist. They’re actually toroidal plasma. Electric Universe Theory. ⚡️ Gravity isn’t a force, it’s a side effect of the electromagnetic nature of things then to find balance equilibrium equipotential of electric charges

[@Vxrtu]

That's fascinating, could you recommend me any authors or pieces of literature revolving around EU Theory?

[@adrianbeckmann3778]

this is so fascinating!