Why Do Black Holes Look Like This?!

[@SplashTasty]

I seen your post about your general concern for the effort you put into your videos and your metrics but SERIOUSLY, don't fret. You've got a unique and entertaining style of science communication. do NOT stop doing what you are doing.

[@numbersix8919]

Double Ditto !!

[@Mix1mum]

To jump on on this, my wife, overhearing the video start on my phone, shouted out, "oh hey crazies* and said you're the next Bill Nye. So keep doing what yr doin Nick. Your channels a gem. And the episodes of you and your wife are hilarious and awesome at the same time. I don't have the patience to be a teacher, as such I'm always awed by those who seem to do it effortlessly.

[@honorarymancunian7433]

There's a concern for the effort he puts into his videos?!

[@rowanclingman4528]

I love this content!

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@Mix1mum 😂 Thanks for sharing the wife story.

[@byamboy]

I can't believe how complex this all is and how easily it slipped right into my consciousness in an 8 min video! You are a freaking talent!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! 🤓

[@mlungisimokhethi6958]

Veritesium explained this, but this makes so much sense.

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@mlungisimokhethi6958 Yep. I linked to Derek's video in my video's description 👍

[@maxximumb]

@@ScienceAsylum Why is it called a black hole when it's not really a hole, but a ball of matter bunched up really, really, tightly. So tightly stuff as we understand it ceases to exist in any recognisable form. My guess is all the subatomic particles are squished back into an energy soup. Not that anyone really knows what happens in there.

[@CookieTube]

​@@maxximumb Words like that (eg: 'hole') are often used as a (very) simplified analogy in science. They are *concepts* which sort-of are similar, but not quite the same. You shouldn't take them literally. They only convey concepts which (try to) make it easier to wrap your head around it. Science is full of such words and concepts. And yes, sometimes the words are very badly choosen. A black hole is not a literal 'hole' in space time. It is a *region* in space-time, a place so you will. Other such words: - Big bang -> this was not a literal massive loud explosion at all. - Spaghetification -> you're not making spaghetti. Spaghetti has a thickness, a taste, it consists of specific stuff, etc. But it does somewhat make it easier to understand what is happening to matter when it occurs. Matter get stretched out so to speak. - Nuclear pasta (in reference to neutron stars): gnocchi phase, spaghetti phase, lasagna phase, etc... are all types of configurations in which neutrons go when neutrons get packed closes and closer together. - Quantum Foam -> this isn't bubbles in space - Dark matter -> Here the word 'dark' does not mean 'the opposite of light', or that it looks dark/black. It means _"we don't know (yet) what it is (but it behaves somewhat like matter)"_ . - Dark energy -> Same here. It means _"we don't know (yet) what it is (but it seems to behave like some kind of energy)"_ . - etc... - etc... Also: _"So tightly stuff as we understand it ceases to exist in any recognisable form"_ No, that is not what science understands it to be. That is what people make it to be. There is a difference. Physics/science says _"We don't know what a singularity actually is. Full stop"_ . Current math/physics breaks down at that level. And thus it is has no meaning. But that is quite something else than _"it ceases to exist"_ . So, a 'singularity' is another of such concepts. It indicates something which current physics (or math for that matter) doesn't know (yet) what it _exactly_ is. For all we know, it is still a existing physical ball (or donut) of very special exotic stuff.

[@fir3w4lk3r]

Your VPN advertisement is the most truthful and honest one I have watched in KZbin. Excellent.

[@FridayHouseXYZ]

Sponsor clone did a great job.

[@numbersix8919]

@@FridayHouseXYZ Was that a clone?

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I hate it when the VPN talking points just lie.

[@yourguard4]

@@numbersix8919 Maybe, these are all clones and the original is missing.

[@artdonovandesign]

_This_ was a great episode, as always. Thanks, Nick!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you liked it 🤓. I worked hard on it.

[@francom6230]

@@ScienceAsylum..bro,, it's obvious you work very hard on ALL your videos. IMO, you're clear presentation & style has real "reach" - hopefully, it also spurs younger intellects to seek knowledge ..

[@Deezy07]

Hey man. I absolutely love how you're able to explain this stuff to make it EXTREMELY understandable. You're doing great, do not stop.

[@mountaindesert34788]

OMG thank you! That Saturn illustration at 4:02 helps me understand the light bending near black hole thing so much better! I feel srupid I couldn't mentally picture whatever I was reading/watching a videoa qbout! And until today, I hadn't seen this concept pelled out this clearly either so thank you! I feek stupid for not getting it til now but I hasn't seen anything like this. Just the text about how the gravity causes light to travel in differrnt ways. I gotta finish the video haha I'm so excited! The first half has been awesome!!

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'm glad the Saturn illustration helped!

[@mountaindesert34788]

@ScienceAsylum absolutely! I still haven't watched too much of your channel, however, I'm happy that means I have a ton of new videos to check out! 😊 The ways black holes flip the roles of space and time is so damn fascinating and I just know a bit more than a layperson, I don't remotely understand this concept beyond space becomes future (events) somehow so meeting the singularity is supposed to be as inevitable as saying it will be August 6th in one week, as of Monday July 31st! Also somehow evem if you try to move back out of the black hole, you only progress faster. I know this is not exactly a very "possible to research" topic in the same way as idk... anything else?? This is asking at least part of about what happens past the event horizon! With blackholes, until I get more of the science and math, I think I have to accept that I will run into this wall at some point and I absolutely, respectfully, envy people who can understand this stuff. Who, like Scharzchild mentioned, can "take a walk in this land of" Einstein's ideas + more!!! What if he didn't die right after the war? I wonder how that could have changed our understanding!! I told u I love black holes! Thanks again for such a cool video and channel!! I wite a ton, I can't help it. Hope you find my thoughts interesting at least, I know the facts and concepts aren't news to you! (Bonus- I definitely saw a black video titled something like: SCIENTISTS FINALLY SEE WHAT IS INSIDE A BLACKHOLE! THE ANSWER IS SHOCKING! I find it funny because nobody can see into a blackhole. Not even with JWST and the reason is one of the first things ppl learn that are special about blackbholes! 😳 obviously kind of nit picking but no, unless it's breaking news everywhere pretty fast, I don't think we're seeing anything at all inside black holes! Perhaps? 🤣

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@mountaindesert34788 That's the bad kind of clickbait title 😬

[@mountaindesert34788]

@@ScienceAsylum hey maybe they managed to break physics and see past the event horizon! 🤣

[@doubled1043]

"Black holes are the blackest black that ever blacked" Love it

[@RFGSwiss]

4:07 the saturn image was genious! thanks!

[@valentindion5573]

You've became so good at rhythmic and information density. I don't know what else to say. Your videos bring me joy.

[@markpats290]

"Flat accretion disker" ....that was genuinely funny !!! 😊

[@JB_inks]

This is much much better than Veritasium's video, so thank you. I didn't realise it was spinning like a flat disc but the image we see is an optical illusion. Black holes really are fascinating!

[@ScienceAsylum]

I think Veritasium's video with the physical model works well for some people and not for others. That's why it's important we cover this stuff in different styles so we can reach everyone 🤓

[@babaali7050]

I agree. Our Crazy's explanation is better than that of Veritasium's one. Veritasium missed several important points.

[@CarBENbased]

I got a good understanding from Veritasium's video myself, but this definitely covers more details and basics for someone who might have struggled with that one or doesn't consume pretty much everything about astronomy they can get their hands on like me XD

[@CookieTube]

@@ScienceAsylum and @babaali7050 I would say both explanations are equally important (and correct) and complement each other! From what I've seen, people who have seen both (and other 'models' for that matter) have a much much better and more correct understanding than people who only have seen one of such explanations/models. Both focus on different aspects of a black hole.

[@priwncess]

Oh it took this video to finally understand what i was looking at!!

[@marcusscience23]

For the part about some black holes being less dense than air, a black hole’s Schwarzchild radius is proportional to its mass, but the radius of a constant density object is proportional to the cube root of its mass. As mass increases, the radius of a black hole grows faster than if it was at a constant density, and hence its density decreases. Some of those supermassive black holes have grown so much they became less dense than air.

[@lloydpl]

I always wondered if sufficiently large ball of air would collapse into black hole. I mean the equation tells us that the black hole of such size would have that density. Why does physics forbid us from having giant beach balls ;c

[@DavionStar]

It's crazy how physicists were able to create such an accurate model of how black holes work and would look like when all we had were stars being thrown around by them and a ton of math.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Right?! Physics is awesome!

[@turingmachine4617]

@@ScienceAsylumespecially when physics goes “Nom! Nom! Nom! Nom!!!”

[@jamesphillips2285]

It was a collaboration between a physicist and VFX artists for the movie "Interstellar". Was a little disappointed that was not mentioned; though forgivable for such a short video.

[@NondescriptMammal]

How do we know the model is so accurate?

[@umi3017]

Actually black hole is kinda simple in terms of math.

[@JHaven-lg7lj]

Two things I hadn’t understood before explained in one video, and only 2/3 of the way through! The bulge in the accretion disk being the part that’s behind the black hole, and IP maskers being like PO Boxes - nobody had ever talked about those in way that made sense to me before. Thanks!

[@Jack_Redview]

A video from my favorite KZbinr , ah it’s a good Sunday Thank you Nick ! Hope the algorithm blesses all your videos 💪🏼💪🏼

[@IllIl]

This was an INCREDIBLY cool episode. I kinda "knew" that the distortions were from optics, but having it all spelled out has made me realise how much cooler it actually is :D

[@JohnDoe-us5rq]

Oh wow. I saw so many videos about black holes and of course most of them used that visualization. But I never understood what I was looking at in such detail. Thank you so much for all the effort it takes to make such wonderful content.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help 🤓

[@CookieTube]

Fun fact: it doesn't only happen with black holes. Also neutron stars have such mass that you can see part of their back side! The visualizations of those are in my opinion even more spectacular than black holes, since you also CAN see the surface (light can still escape), yet they are so dense that they also visually bend the light.

[@sadanyagci]

The first HONEST and ACCURATE commercial for a VPN that I have ever seen! Thank you for your ad service. Finally, no false information on VPN products.

[@oldieman730]

"Flat Accretion Disker".... cracked me up, thanks. For years now I have enjoyed the way you present the information, because it engages me and so I learn. Never got past year 12 due to learning difficulties and lack of engagement, so your videos have been a breath of fresh air for me. Thanks again.

[@ScienceAsylum]

My pleasure! Glad you like my work.

[@glenncurry3041]

Thanks!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks for the support!

[@MrHichammohsen1]

Lmao the Flat accretion disker joke was BRILLIANT! our sponsor for tod... ohh

[@MikeSimoneLV]

This was one of the best explanations I've seen so far. Thank you for producing such high-quality education!

[@dens790130]

Although this one is quite decent and entertaining, I think Veritasium explained it better 4 years ago : kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIbceWaOndV_itE

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

The first time I’d heard about the bent image of the accretion disk was due to the movie Interstellar and Kip Thorne’s insistence on scientific accuracy. The filmmakers had to design their own rendering engine because everything on the market presumed light travels in a straight line.

[@CookieTube]

To clarify for others: _"everything on the market"_ = film industry in general. Science itself knew since long long time what black holes 'look' like or how they behaved. And it also wasn't new to some movies/filmmakers that light can bend due to gravity. It has been used many times before in movies, but not to such accurate extent. *The first true image of a black hole was actually created in 1979 by Jean-Pierre Luminet* who drew it on a piece of paper, with the aid of an early computer, and a hell of a lot of math. The movie 'Interstellar' was just the very first time a (almost) physically accurate 3D image of a black hole was used in a popular blockbuster, and at that scale and importance to the movie. Note: they did had to make some concessions though!! The image you see in 'Interstellar' isn't 100% accurate!! Especially the depiction of scale and speeds of the light and spacecraft are very very wrong. But they made these concessions on purpose for artistical effects.

[@jayjasespud]

Technically, it does!

[@IskanderVFX]

that was a pr stunt, there are multiple ways of rendering that, you can of course create a rendering engine and make it sound more impressive or important, but you don't need to

[@Soguwe]

​@@IskanderVFXyes, you do need a new engine Render engines don't simulate reality They simulate a broken down reality based on the perspective of a human You don't need to render every leave, only those the camera sees, and even then only the visible parts But when you try to render natural phenomena as they would actually look like, that is not enough You need to increase the complexity, render all parts of the phenomenon Normal render engines can't do that Also, normal render engines understand spacetime to be stationary, not bent like around a black hole You have to program that logic in, at which point you've created a new render engine

[@ADR69]

Didn't each frame take a day to render too? Insane

[@FalconFetus8]

Thank you for being honest about what VPNs do and don't do in the sponsored section! Integrity is sexy

[@akashsunil7464]

Jesus christ, finally, this has been a question in my mind since a long time. Thanks a lot for this show stopper, nick it literally blew my mind

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help 🤓

[@bobinmaine1]

One of the things I love about your videos, aside from "fast fast", is that you are always quick with the disclaimers. Such as, "We call this the black hole shadow.... It's not really a shadow...". You did the same with light "bouncing" off a mirror. But isn't it true that gravity doesn't actually bend light? It bends Space Time and light must travel that path, so technically it is lights path that is bent and not light itself.

[@CookieTube]

Yeah, I had the same thought when he said _"gravity affects everything"_ . In my view, gravity only affects spacetime by bending it, that is all. And it is this bending of spacetime which actually dictates the travel path of _"everything/light"_ . I have seen MANY comments from people over the years who, because of this 'inaccurate' (for the lack of better word) view, come to wrong or at least inaccurate conclusions. Like: _"mass is gravity, and gravity influences light... therefore light must have mass and science is wrong"_ . So yeah, *I also LOVE those quick disclaimers* , for sure! They clear up a whole lot!! Most other science channels don't do this unfortunately. And as such people quite often take many things literally because of it, or out of context, instead of understanding it as a _'concept'_ or as a _'not so well worded thingie'_ . The term _"Big Bang"_ is the first thing that comes to mind (eg: _"it was a huge loud explosion"_ ). But the misunderstanding that _"light bounces"_ or _"reflects"_ is indeed maybe the most used one ever. Light does not bounce or reflect. It is a photon that gets absorbed, and because of the added energy, a NEW photon with a NEW package of slightly less energy/wavelength gets emitted. And this also explains the saying that _"light travels slower in a medium"_ ... it doesn't, a photon always travels at the constant speed c. It just takes a slightly longer time to constantly need to absorb and re-emit a new photon along the whole way.

[@ScienceAsylum]

There's a limit to how many disclaimers I can put in a video before people stop watching. If people aren't watching, it doesn't matter _how_ accurate I am. The extra accuracy is a waste.

[@bobinmaine1]

@@ScienceAsylum But I was actually asking. I want sure that what I thought was true. Thank you for replying though

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@bobinmaine1 Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Yes, you are correct. Technically speaking, objects curve spacetime and then anything traveling through that space is affected. That just isn't a nuance that felt necessary in this video. I have to prioritize.

[@pheargoth]

I absoloutely love your videos, Nick. Your pressentation and diagrams are top notch, and your ability to simplify complex concepts is amazing.👌👌

[@sean_vikoren]

Your way of really getting under something, is World Class. Attaching to such an elemental abstraction (lines), you left zero room for a misunderstanding. Bravo!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! 🤓

[@petersage5157]

I love Question Clone's shirt in this episode. One of my most intellectually stimulating conversations with my father was whether a society with a purely metaphorical language could develop the technology depicted in "The Children of Tama".

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's basically just meme culture at this point, so I think we have a proof of concept.

[@petersage5157]

@@ScienceAsylum And back when that episode first aired, the position I took was that pretty much everything most of us understand about quantum physics and astrophysics involves metaphors, e.g. the raisin bread model of the expanding Universe. Meme culture presents an interesting conundrum though - could we have developed the technology used to disseminate these memes if that was the way we communicated before we developed the technology? Oh dear, I seem to have fallen down another rabbit hole. I really should put out a rabbit trap.

[@davidtesta1361]

Nick, super explanation as usual. I have a much better understanding of this now even after seeing other explanations. Oh and holy smokes, I think your Darmok & Jalad live at Tanagra shirt is the best one I've ever seen in all of spacetime.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It's a super soft shirt too!

[@gurkiratsingh7tha993]

Noiceee video, appreciate the effort, Love y'all

[@physicshuman9808]

6:23 This is these orbits get very weird. see typically in classical Newtonian orbits, they have negative energy which means it can be found, but in this case, the energy direction is flipped. At the photon sphere, the energy that it has is actually zero.

[@SonicImmersion_]

I hadn't known about the photon ring. Makes sense now, with your description, that there would be a gap between the visible portion of the accretion disk of matter and the photon ring. I also like how you showed the photons orbiting the black hole, and some of the outer ones gradually escaping, as what we see for the inner photon ring

[@grapy83]

Seriously, this is one of the best episodes of your channel. I see you changed your speaking style. Now its more easily digestible. Thanks for all your hard work. Please do more episodes with lady of the house M. She asks genuinely good questions.

[@anixolx]

timestamps: start: 0:00 8:58 yoo this is the earliest video i commented on

[@XEinstein]

1:19 YES!!! BTW Nick, it's been aaaaages since we had a 'superzoom'. You're long overdue for one of those.

[@bengraham3707]

I’ve watched a bunch of black hole weird shape videos, but never got it until this one. Really clear intuitive explanation! Also fun. Also, the best vpn ad I’ve seen that wasn’t hype. Great stuff!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help!

[@numbersix8919]

Outstanding explanation! The theoretical appearance of the event horizon was surprising. You might even say Crazy!

[@Optimal_Living01]

Glad to see you posting mentor.

[@classifiedveteran9879]

In the movie Interstellar _(which is quite good aside for its few flaws and sudden dive into pure fantasy near the end)_ the slingshot maneuver around the black hole always peeved me. First they'd vaporize from skimming so close to the acretion disk, it's basically like doing a low-earth orbit, but with the sun. 🤔 _(So a low-sun orbit?)_ 🤷‍♂️ They'd also be bombarded with subatomic particles, radiation, and atoms flung at nearly lightspped. It'd basically a very messy fusion reactor. So, even if they somehow survived, the lethal dose of radiation would certainly be achieved, and they'd be very much like those famous Chernobyl firefighters.☢️ _If not worse..._ Passing through that photon sphere, on one's way to visiting the inside a black hole, would be like trying to run through those pesky "lightsaber/laser walls" in the end of The Phantom Menace. There's more than just visible light too, such as gamma rays. So you're back to poking the Demon Core with a screwdriver, which is a stupid game that only wins you stupid prises. There are so many things that'd kill you from the accretion disk by playing Ring Around The Rosy with a black hole. It's a seething chaotic region of relativistic violence. Simply put, black holes don't play around.

[@CookieTube]

Yes, the depiction of scale and speeds of the spacecraft, and the light beams you see swirling around, are not accurate. But that was done on purpose. So it wasn't a 'mistake' in that they 'overlooked' it. They knew it was not 100% scientifically accurate. It was done for artistical purposes/ to convey awe and wonder/ danger, etc.... In short, so the audience would at least see something happening/moving on screen. Because you wouldn't be able to see anything swirling around in reality, it would just be a permanent blinding blob of light from that close. But for all intents and purposes, the black hole was accurate (enough). A movie will always need to be seen with suspended disbelief, no matter how 'accurate' it is. (eg: LOTS of 'wrong' stuff and/or artistical licenses in 'The Expanse' too. Even though that show is known to be the most accurate in its genre, till this date)

[@ecospider5]

They can travel faster than light to get to the black hole and you’re worried about their shielding when they get there?

[@thewackykid]

urm it's a sci FICTION movie for a reason... it may use some real physics to recreate stuffs in the movie doesn't mean they are not going to invent or ignore other physics... 😂

[@stapler942]

The films The Black Hole (1979) and Interstellar (2014) may have wildly different renditions of the titular object, the latter film being a lot more accurate, but one thing they do share in common is having a certain mystical element beyond the event horizon. That seems to be a shared theme in black hole fiction, the notion that something beyond any of the science is waiting in there. Possibly involving time shenanigans. I guess black holes make for a convenient poetic device in sci-fi. 😝

[@classifiedveteran9879]

@@stapler942 Yes, agreed. With movies the story has to come first. Puking in your space helmet from acute radiation syndrome before being vaporized in the photon sphere doesn't sell box office tickets. I do have to poke fun at the "wonderland black hole interior" Hollywood hypothesis due to a common theme I find in the universe. Large celestial objects that are dangerous being in the proximity of, get far more hostile the moment you enter their spherical boudry. For example, take Jupiter and it's insanely radioactive magnetosphere that can kill you in a matter of hours. Going inside of Jupiter thinking that it'll be a lovely acid-trip you can walk away from is completely nuts. This applies to just about every _"danger ball"_ in space. In my strongest opinion, black holes are not exempt of this theme.

These videos are CRAZY good!

[@naveenrreddy2008]

A lot of things clear in this video. Thank you, amazing content as always. Please talk about naked singularity in any future video please. Its kind of intriguing..

[@808bigisland]

Don’t stop! We all love your lectures!

[@mpwest929]

You are definitely my favorite science educator. Very intuitive explanations but I never feel it’s dumbed down. Your wife should start a related Biology channel. I would watch that too.

[@sskonvict]

That “Flat Accretion Discer” one was ultimate ❤

[@mmenjic]

5:35 you are THE only person on the planet mentioning this in promoted content - check your terms of service to see if you are allowed to use vpn 👍👏✔

[@ScienceAsylum]

I insisted that sentence be there. To be fair though, they didn't argue with it at all, which gave me good vibes.

[@mmenjic]

@@ScienceAsylum I know you did, who else do you know would do that 🤣🤣

[@Marsrecall1]

Brilliant! Your channel deserves more subscribers.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! 😃

[@gk_7212]

As a computer science student I need to commend your description of what a VPN is useful for. Respect.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I hate it when the VPN talking points just lie.

[@vextorite]

I came straight to the comments as soon as I saw the sponsor segment because this was the most honest one I've seen.

[@bitterlemonboy]

I also hate it when I already have a better VPN but have to watch the sponsorship.

[@jamesphillips2285]

I actually skipped it. Refreshing to see an honest VPN ad. Though SSL has been deprecated. It is all about TLS (not sure which version) now.

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@bitterlemonboy I put a timer on the screen so you can skip if you want. You don't _have_ to watch it.

[@macronencer]

I'm so glad you covered this! I had a vague notion of what was going on with this image, but hadn't ever checked all the details. You explained it really well - thank you.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad it was helpful! 🤓

[@theegalakrishnnaprasad9323]

Hey, very good explanation Mr. Science Asylum. Can you say more about the density stuff of the black hole, please 🥺🥺🥺

[@adb012]

The radius of the black hole (or rather of its event horizon) is R=2MG/c² . G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light, another constant. M is the only thing not constant there. So basically the diameter is proportional to the mass. The density d = mass / volume, and volume of a sphere is 4πR³/3 So d = M / 4πR³/3, but R was R=2MG/c², so d = M / 4π(2MG/c²)³/3, let's re-arrange this a little bit: d = 3Mc⁶/32π³G³M³, finally, cancelling the M we get d = 3c⁶/32π³G³M² There you go, the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the mass squared. Put enough mass (and enough means A LOT here), and you will eventually reach a density of less than air or actually as low as you want. In fact, a black hole with the mass of all of the observable universe would have a radius suspiciously close to the radius of the observable universe, so its density would be the average density of the observable universe, or 10^-31 g/cm³, or about 6 protons or neutrons per cubic meter. Believe me, that is MUUUUUUUUCH les dense than air that has gazillion of protons / neutrons per cubic mm. But that begs the REAL question.... if putting all the mass of the universe in a sphere of the size of the universe would be a black hole, is our universe a black hole? How do we escape that fate if it is not?

[@theegalakrishnnaprasad9323]

@@adb012 thank you

[@CookieTube]

@@adb012 Insert "dramatic prairie dog meme"..... tum tum tuuuuuuuuuum

[@HelenKelly-t3d]

This was a great episode, as always. Thanks, Nick!. This was a great episode, as always. Thanks, Nick!.

[@luudest]

7:57 does the front and back thing also happen with dense neutron stars?

[@numbersix8919]

I reckon so.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It does happen with neutron stars, but not nearly as extremely.

[@mjolnir3309]

Cool. I understand that gap now. Thanks for the description.

[@adilsongoliveira]

The "flat acreation disker" made my day, thanks! 😁

[@ScienceAsylum]

😆

[@ankokuraven]

another great video! the optics of a black hole are one of the coolest effects we can experience from such extreme conditions. i love how much it screws with our sense of perspective and reminds us that there is something real outside the flawed way we perceive and process things.

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

3:10 Does that mean Earth is travelling in a "straight" line around the sun?

[@JamshadAhmad]

yes.

[@numbersix8919]

Yes. Yes it does. That line is called a geodesic. I hope the Asylum Master corrects me if I'm wrong.

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@numbersix8919 No correction needed. You're good 👍

[@fep_ptcp883]

I'll never forget that Veritasium released a video explaining what a black hole would look like hours before the EHT published the actual first image of M87*. Science is awesome

[@luudest]

how does energy conservation work in the accretion disk? What happens if a particle radiates some of its energy away? Will it afterwards loose potential energy?

[@BenAlternate-zf9nr]

As matter falls toward the BH, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (it speeds up). As it spirals around the disc and interacts with other matter, some of that kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy, and some of the thermal energy is radiated away via blackbody radiation. Charged particles lose additional energy through other kinds of radiation, and some energy is lost to gravitational waves as well. Whatever energy is leftover is absorbed by the BH and adds to its total mass via mass-energy equivalence. Any electric charge and angular momentum are also conserved and added to the BH.

[@quantumleaps4900]

Always insightful, educational and highly skilled communication. Thanks so much.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MrSmashmonkey]

Black balls in space look like what now?

[@Menaceblue3]

Big BLACK *BALLS* are chocolate sweet goodness!

[@rosskrt]

*_BLACK BALLS IN SPACE!_*

[@ScienceAsylum]

😂

[@realzachfluke1]

This is EXTREMELY helpful, thank you so much. So many pieces of information, and questions to be asked, that have been hiding in plain sight in front of me for years that I never would've realized or thought to ask without this visual explanation. This should be mandatory viewing for all black hole video-watchers on KZbin lol.

[@kwezicanca3698]

Im the first to comment.... Love from South Africa to my most fav science channel ❤

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you like the channel! (but, unfortunately, you are the 4th to comment)

[@leftmono1016]

This is a fantastic channel!! Thank you.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@tesoulx]

Neutron stars have the same optical illusion… not that extreme of course!, but can see more than just the front.

[@Alec0124]

hehe your outro reminded me, I had a co-worker who gestured to me the other day that their customer might a be a little crazy. I was like "oh, well that's okay!" ^_^

[@tomkerruish2982]

0:06 Subtle.

[@digitiger100]

here is more info about black holes than ANY OTHER youtube channel has. thank you

[@feynstein1004]

I imagine neutron stars would look just as trippy, since they're on the edge of being black holes themselves. It's just that we don't have a picture of them yet. The nearest one is supposed to be ~400 light years away. Perhaps NASA should get on that 😅

[@ScienceAsylum]

Neutron stars definitely look trippy too, but not _quite_ as much. (If they're on the verge of become black holes, they'll be pretty close though.)

[@CookieTube]

IMHO, they look even MORE trippy since you can also 'see' the 'disc/surface' of the object itself.... And if I recall correctly, there already ARE pictures of them (or at least one?). That is, a visualization of the received data. Not quite like the famous black hole photos though (which are by the way also 'false colored' and not 'photos' in the way you take with a camera). But I might be wrong, though I could swear I have seen one somewhere.

[@BenAlternate-zf9nr]

There is a threshold effect where a compact object that gains enough mass to become a black hole collapses into a much smaller size, so an object that's "right on the limit" in terms of mass is actually much less dense/compact than a slightly more massive black hole, so the distorted effect would be significantly less extreme for non-BH compact objects.

[@feynstein1004]

@@BenAlternate-zf9nr I meant right on the limit in terms of density, not mass. Neutron stars are the next densest things. So we should see similar gravitational distortions.

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@feynstein1004 NASA has a visualization of a neutron star's surface, if you're interested: svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/20268

[@LookiePookie]

love this mans brilliant humor and knowledge. came back from deployment and thoroughly enjoyed this video!!!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad you enjoyed it! 🤓

[@brianawilk285]

In the distant future if humanity is still around black holes will probably used to generate power.

[@iamjimgroth]

I love that you go into detail about stuff like this! 😃

[@nocturnomedieval]

First. Great video

[@ScienceAsylum]

You are fifth.

[@nocturnomedieval]

​@@ScienceAsylumthird world internet latencies messing my youtube comments? How is it even possible!

[@birdthompson]

I was wondering about this very thing...thanks for (almost) clarifying it...black holes are truly insane!!!

[@hillcrestvideoprod1]

I’ve often wondered why BHs looked that way! Thanks for the clear explanations!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help! 🤓

[@psa4026]

"The blackest black that ever blacked" Mic drop 🎤

[@louisjacobs5820]

I like how you explains things and break things down

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I work really hard on the break down.

[@idomeir9912]

First

[@ScienceAsylum]

Can confirm.

[@mikeuk666]

Why do kids even say this?

[@lobsterthepigeon8349]

Yours is one of the best explanations I've seen so far. You're one excellent science communicating dude!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! 🤓

[@dens790130]

I'll agree it's a very entertaining explanation, but i think Veritasium did a great job with it 4 years ago : kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIbceWaOndV_itE

[@diegofernandez4789]

Glad you made another great video. Thanks Nick! BTW, I saw Interstellar just yesterday and the black hole is incredible well made, and that was made before the real photograph!

[@CookieTube]

But made AFTER *1979* when *Jean-Pierre Luminet* created the first image using an early computer, tons and tons of math, and pen and paper. Google his name! 😉

[@RudivanderWalt]

Awesome video Nick, my favourite one you've done so far! Thanks!

[@Golden_SnowFlake]

Great video as always, Keep it up!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks, will do! 🤓

[@casual_sky2]

You're a really gifted science communicator 👍🏽. Fantastic episode as always

[@dillonpatriquin5809]

😂😂I got a good kick out of the flat accretion disker comment. Thanks for the video!!. I have been scratching my head at this question for aslong as i can remembre. This video made alot of sense of this.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad to help 🤓

[@Mark_Williams.]

So the black hole "shadow" in the middle is made up of numerous "rings" of the image of the event horizon. I've never heard this explained anywhere else, very cool! Great video!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yep. Black hole optics are weird like that.

[@HelmutPolischer]

The graphics in this video were terrific.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks! I've worked hard on them.

[@Aalok1991]

What an incredibly cool episode!🤟🏼

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@astraluniverse5928]

Please can you sometime make a whole video about this effect you describe at 7:50. I'm dying to see this with a grid that shows the poles along with the infinite repetitions of the imagine the more we get close to the edge of the event horizon. I cant find anything on YT that explains it like you did but it really deserves an entire video. Thanks and remain crazy

[@AC3handle]

this was a good numnumnum of science. Thing is, almost all the accretion disk images we have at this point are a result of the black hope that was visualized in Interstellar, in 2014 Because Nolan asked Kip Thorn to help visualize what an actual black hole would look like, using current CG tech. So he made a formula that the computer could use, and bam...black hole visualization changed forever. Before that, it was all like Disney's The Black hole.

[@wojtalkow]

Hey, more about black holes! 1. Does a black hole have a entrance? 2. Is a black hole a spheree and you can enter from every side? 3. Where all the mass goes? Is it compressed to a point or a black hole have "a bag" like does it look like a lets say a butterfly net? MORE!

[@narfwhals7843]

The event horizon is the "entrance". Things can fall into the black hole by crossing the event horizon. And its a one way entrance. Nothing that falls in can get out. There is no exit. A non-rotating black hole is a sphere in space. Rotating ones will be a bit stretched to the sides and bulged in at the axis of rotation. The event horizon is a surface all around the black hole. You can enter from any direction. We don't really know where the stuff goes that falls in. The math says it all falls to the center and collects in a single point. But we mostly don't think that's physically possible, so that mass seems wrong. We'd need a better model of gravity, probably including quantum mechanics, to give a more satisfying answer. The best we can say is that the mass is inside the event horizon.

[@Nosirt]

1) the event horizon is the entrance, in fact blackhole only has an entrance and no exit. 2) yes, it is a ball shaped, and you can get in it from all direction. 3) the mass should be all going to the singularity. Blackholes don’t have mass all stored in them like it’s packed sardines, outside the singularity, the density of blackhole is small enough to float in water (seriously). After you cross the event horizon, all future events will lead you to the singularity- so you can move left, right, up, down and all you’d be doing is moving towards the singularity. (It is important to remember that the singularity is a mathematical model and we can not be sure it exist in real life- since it is impossible to gain information from inside the event horizon).

[@ANunes06]

We might not have anything as extravagant as walking on the moon or Mars in my lifetime, but the rate at which we've been able to start saying "But then we took a picture, and the theory was correct." is starting to give me that same feeling.

[@mazubahambizi5801]

Blackholes are my favorite things, thanks for this one nick

[@jeethantauro5221]

Amazing content as always ❤️

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thank you 🤓

[@jeethantauro5221]

@@ScienceAsylum been following you since you were in 200k and now u r almost hitting 700k. Keep it up mahn. And keep doing what you do. The thing is I am only 18 and I am not financially independent, if I were I would definitely support you on patreon. It's a promise the day I become financially independent, I will support you

[@tmdrake]

Love your show, rawr!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Thanks!

[@the_eternal_student]

So you answered my question from another video. Good job!

[@ScienceAsylum]

Glad I could help!

[@babaali7050]

Hey Crazy! Love your crazy explanation. Watching your videos is always full of knowledge with fun.

[@qritique]

Gravity is not a force ! He said it! Awesome. 👏

[@scott_meyer]

Technically no, it's not. But in our frame of reference it appears as one and can be treated as one.

[@CookieTube]

Of course he said that. By his own admission he is a flat accretion disk'er. 😆

[@ScienceAsylum]

@@scott_meyer But near black holes, you _can't_ treat it like a force. You have to treat it as curved spacetime or we get the wrong answers. Context matters 😉

[@scott_meyer]

@ScienceAsylum Hmm, must be why it's called relativity.

[@schifoso]

That was an excellent explanation of a black hole. Thanks.

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're very welcome 🤓

[@SB-qm5wg]

2:28 😆 Nice TMNT t-shirt

[@Victor76661]

If there was a Nobel prize for Pedagogical skills, this here is a strong candidate: Nick!

[@ohboi8854]

Have been enjoying all the videos since i have seen the video on explanation of gravity