Unsolved Mystery in Physics | Direct Collapse Black Holes
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 11. 12. 2018
- How do the first black holes in the Universe form? How do they then grow into supermassive black holes weighing 800 million times the mass of the Sun within 600 million years of the Big Bang? Astrophysicists have been inferring the existence of direct collapse black holes for a long time to try and explain this unsolved mystery...
Here's hoping the James Webb Space Telescope will eventually help us solve this one.
Don't forget to send me your images of Comet 46P Wirtanen and the Gemenids Meteor Shower from this month - I'll be putting a couple of them in my SkyNews video next week. Put them in the comments or tweet them to me @drbecky_ đ
A plethora of apologies for the blurry footage. I was going to reshoot this video the next day but then I got ill so this is what we're working with this week! Still trying to shake off this cough and cold đ€§
Also, yes the audio does change at 12:27 - I think my microphone slipped so it was a bit muted. All the tech problems this week! Hope you enjoyed regardless :)
Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
I also present videos on Sixty Symbols: / sixtysymbols
and Deep Sky Videos: / deepskyvideos
Dr. Becky Smethurst is a Junior Research Fellow at Christ Church at the University of Oxford.
drbecky.uk.com - VÄda a technologie
I was watching without my glasses and so I couldn't tell.
Cody'sLab One day Iâll stumble on a good channel, and you wonât be there yet. One day.
Me too
@Enter the Braggn' Nonsense?
@Enter the Braggn' Argumentations?
@Enter the Braggn' You are wrong, Mr. Braggin'!
Beckys uncertainty principle, you can know what she looks like, or what she sounds like, but not both at the same time. Very interesting video, technical issues aside.
This made me laugh out loud!
Well said.
â@@DrBecky yay, laughter! Yay also to you going ahead and uploading for us. The content didn't suffer any, and I'm really glad you didn't let perfection be the enemy of the good (as some would; no idea if this is something you ever struggle with). Interesting stuff! Thank you for all your research and work in sharing!
Actually you can now both, you just have to ignore one of the results.
đđđđ
Awe Dr Becky, you have a Hubble problem, all fuzzy right after launch. Still a shining star though. đ
Night Beard
Hubble "Space Telescope" is not in space. Hubble is not in orbit. Hubble does not exist. Hubble was "fixed" by astronots in a pool of water.
@@StarNumbers To each their own I guess. Probably best not to frequent these videos then. There is obviously nothing here for you.
@@drewbola
Not so. I do not pay for fraud.
I think "hubbly" is a better word for "out of focus".
LOL, true. Perhaps she's had the same problem Hubble did and her camera just needs glasses. ;)
IÂŽll start using the word "hubbly" immediately
Possible reasons for the blurred video:
* Focus of the camera
* Atmospheric effects
* Gravitational distortion
As we all know, cameras sometimes do what they want. This makes it hardest to rule out if it's the focus. Therefore, it is easier to eliminate the other possible reasons by shooting your next video in intergalactic space. If it's still blurred, we would know it's the fault of the camera focus.
Gravitational Distortion I like it
Adaptive optics might help.
This is the best comment ever.
Same optics manufacture as the Hubble Space Telescope
how about lotion on the lens :)
It's incredible that as a novice in the field of astrophysics, I get to learn first hand from a world class lecturer for free.
I love that totally brilliant people have the same issues as we mortals. Love the channel.
@Enter the Bragnâ Here as well?
@Enter the Bragnâ Einstein said the definieof stupidity is repeating the same action, expecting different results. You must be a Flerfer.
What a coincidence, 2 days ago I met a PhD student from the Netherlands who is working on simulating interactions between high-mass black holes. He mentioned that it was a difficult task but I was having trouble understanding why (my vague understanding is that scientists are able to simulate solar-mass black hole interactions reasonably well), but this video really helped explain some of the complications in that field of study! Thank you!! :)
Need more compute!!
Did you know that black holes its not a hole đ”âđ« trust me, is hard for them to explain đ
No one had ever explained that process before as well as you did, thank you. It's nice to see your passion about it, clearly unscripted material, just a pure form and very captivating. Focus and bits...technicalities.
Enjoying this.
Thanks!
Great video, Dr. Becky! I'm so glad that you started your own channel.
Great channel!! So great to see Dr. Becky with her own videos!
good to see you have the same problems every starting youtuber has . camera focus, sound quality, background sounds, etc. live and learn. keep going pls , you make good stuff :-)
@Tracchofyre The cost of technology has significantly reduced since the 1990's. Maybe a good mic but sometimes those noise cancelling units (eg. the old Sennheiser headset mic) can make matters worse depending on the surrounds. With some attention to acoustic deadening and an average computer (c. 2012) with an i7 running Linux, one can achieve very professional post-processing using all OpenSource tools distributed freely under GPL agreement.
@Tracchofyre just curious: would you rather get the videos without this, or get nothing? "She needs" seems harsh to me. Would her videos benefit from this stuff? Perhaps... though the video quality isn't the main thing here, it's the research, the excitement, etc. [edited to add:] IMHO.
One way to handle an out of focus video problem is to shrink it down to thumbnail size in the corner and superimpose it over the other videos and charts you include for examples. That way, nobody will really notice the focus issue.
I love your enthusiasm in these videos, and how much great information you provide. Always great work!
Amazing episode! Thank you for the detail!
Thank you, Dr Becky. I learn so much listening to you
I was 3,000 thumbs up! Well deserved, Becky. Thank you so much for your overviews. Was thinking what we would not have without them. There would be a black hole there... Thank you so much!
This is the first time I've ever seen it explained so well. Thank you.
So glad I found your channel. Love your videos and wanted to say thank you for the free knowledge/entertainment
I love it Dr Becky. You are great!
I just found your channel and am deeply impressed. As a layman I have a ton of ideas and even more questions. Hopefully we can start a dialog to answer a few of these.
Your enthusiasm is respected and adored!
Great video. Thank You for the knowledge. Merry Christmas from KY in the USA.
First time I'd heard of this topic. Really interesting!
Don't know how I managed to miss that you have your own channel ... but very glad I - eventually - found out ! :-)
Looking forward to more interesting videos in 2019
0:00 I love the stars in your eye! You should design a line of astronomical contact lenses. Some people have a flag or cats eyes, I want galaxies! :-)
And here, I was just dreaming of catch light designs... a la "the Galadriel light" (which, sadly, I'm having trouble finding a good reference for... but if you have the extended edition Lord of the Rings DVDs, there's stuff in there somewhere about them...)
I take it back.. the former setup with desk, the cactus-pot and the pictures is much more pleasing to the eyes and give a feeling of home.......... go Becky...!!!
The direct collapse theory is very interesting. Very excited to see what future telescopes will find and with brilliant scientists such as yourself, I am sure it will only be a matter of time before the truth is discovered! Thanks for a very enjoyable and educational video Dr.!
Dr Becky has her own CZcams channel? Early Xmas present!
even out of focus this is a great video
Great video, Doctor!
Huge amounts of information in a seamless manner. Always fun
Everything stops - becky released a new video
Indeed! Press the pause button on life. đ
JediNg135 yup. Been waiting!
You are so animated with great facial expressions. Do you make mistakes to make your videos fun? The visuals you show are easy to understand and fascinating. They are the best I have seen. The only problem I have is it is hard to stop watching.
Cool video! Looking forward to more!
Hi Becky. Try to think of your camera as a small version of the Hubble Space Telescope. You nailed the audio at the start of this one. I look forward to your future videosâŠ
You're using a Nikon D5300? I thought you had such a camera. They are bad at autofocus during video, so it's better to focus before you start and set the lens at manual focus, so it can't adjust during video. A larger depth of field (f/5.6-8) makes it easier to keep you in focus while you move your head back and forth. Another possibility of course is a camera with good autofocus in video. A Sony RX100 IV, a Canon 200D with 18-55 STM, or Panasonic LX15 are good choices (the sony and panasonic also offer 4k). If you need more help on camera stuff, just ask, I work as a senior sales manager in a camera store and I am also a photographer
Wish I had known that before I bought by Nikpn D5300.
for some years and quite a few reasons if have been regretting now, that i did not study physics when i had the chance to - never getting to talk galaxies with you at some conference is very high on that list... keep them black holes coming...!
You, Dr. Becky, are always sharp! đ
thanks a lot Dr. Becky
Dr Becky videos are informative educative. Very Simple to understand . The topics selected are intresting. Techological developments such as of Space X , Nasas new space programes can be added in her space information videos . Telescopes are of great intrest . .
Nice video. Focus issues, sure, and you had some hiss come in near the end, but that's just learning your editing software. It helps to get separate software for the audio, too, even free software like Audigy will totally blow away your video editor in terms of isolating and eliminating baseline sound issues.
That said, love the energy to camera... that's much harder to teach than how to focus and edit sound, so you have a good start there. Nice balance between you and your graphics, pretty good presentation of the subject matter.
Keep going, you'll get better at the technical stuff. ;)
Edit: comparing to your earlier videos, I see you're already learning a lot. Color correction, better microphone, maybe a little sound dampening in the recording room... getting better. The difference in your first video between your new content and the stuff from Brady's channels was pretty stark, heh. Now it's much closer.
You rock, Dr. Becky!
Came from Aspec.
You have an awesome channel. SUBBED!
Fortunately, I much prefer a good explanation with bad video (and ditto sound, sorry) than the other way around.
Pruus'n Hanna Like the sci channel that has nooo paus in between sentences. The topic might be awesome and intriguing, but a minute in your head just canât cope with it.
@@DarkJK I think you must mean SciShow, or that's the worst example I know. I've taken to muting it and relying on subtitles I find it so irritating, Why do they have to edit out the natural pauses and make it all sound so breathlessly exciting as if we're otherwise too dumb to be intrigued by the topics? Dr Becky's natural vivacity is good enough for me.
I love you Dr. Becky!
I love your enthusiasm, Since you're an expert on various types of early black holes could you potentially shed some light on the concept of a Quasi-star and what kind of mechanics would make it function?
Dr. Smethurst, your enthusiasm more than compensates for the minor technical flaws of this video.
if it was anybody but hot dr. becky giving this lecture i wouldve fell asleep 2 minutes in and my face wouldve hit the table :)
Did you publish this video on a schedule after uploading? It showed up far back in my subscription feed.
Superlative! Thanks đ
Aquarius A-2 Universe Simulation starting at 3:41 is super interesting. At 7:58 the beginning of a wonderful discourse on gravity. Thank you, Dr. Becky!
Hi Dr. Becky, got questions for yah.
Did you have to study General Relativity as part of your education? Was it as enriching an experience as it seems from the outside?
My insatiable appetite for space-time can no longer be quenched by CZcams videos, so I want to order a textbook. Is there a comprehensive text on G.R that you recommend. I only know of Gravitation by Misner, Thorne.
I have studied differential equations, integral calculus, and vector analysis at an undergraduate level so I'm hoping I will be able to digest the math of G.R.
Loving the new videos btw!
Great video content, thank you!
Cool video becky :)
Adaptive optics must be applied đ Love your videos dr. Becky
Out of focus or not, still better than 90% of youtube videos.
I've been waiting to hear about this! Penrose' cyclic universe model comes to mind (i.e. the big ones never finished evaporating from the previous cycle)?
Camera work forgiven, great material.
Hi Becky - just subscribed to your channel - love this extreme astronomy, mind-bending stuff indeed, so thanks for that. Adaptive optics anyone?
Thanks for this, I hadn't heard of the idea of direct collapse to a SMBH,
I am so looking forward on all the updates to this now that James Web is out there doing its thing
I know it's unlikely that youtubers will walk in with ideas not already tested by specialists but is there any way the measurement of astronomical distance could be questioned? I sort of know about the cepheid variables thing but how are they so sure about this object? I suppose I should try finding out rather than pester here.. Great video, btw. It's the third one of yours I've seen and each has left questions to ponder. Quality youtube.
Its a good job they don't get you to calibrate the telescope optics! great video as always
Blurry but still beautiful. ..love her work
Oh, subscribed.
And Iâve fallen in love!
Dr Becky, whatâs your position in regards to Dr Jamie Farnes theory of the negative mass fluid?
Should have just made the b roll blurry too and attempt to convince all viewers they need to get their eyes checked.
_This video was sponsored by Warby Parker_
+Dr. Becky has it been considered that the supermassive black holes that seeded galaxies were formed in the extreme dense state of energy in the time immediately after the big bang? More specifically, some time during inflation but prior to the point when matter started to exist ionized atoms/gas? To my layman understanding, this seems like a more intuitive explanation.
1. The densities of energy would have been unimaginably great. All the matter/energy in the universe would have existed in volumes ranging from that of a basketball to that of the solar system. Within those volumes and even beyond, seems like the density would allow direct energy collapse to black holes similar to Kugelblitz black holes.
2. Since we're talking about energy collapse and not traditional baryonic matter, there might not be the same restrictions and limits on collapse and growth that baryonic matter faces.
3. These primordial supermassive black holes could also explain galaxy evolution as they could be involved in the energy distribution during inflation that led to the variable matter density in the cooling and expanded universe.
If supermassive black holes collapsed and grew during the same period as when gas glouds and star formation started, it would seem that there should be many examples of galaxies without supermassives, and also many stars in intergalactic space that formed in between as galaxies were forming. The fact that neither exists seems to imply that galaxy formation with supermassives is more tightly dependent.
From a different approach, using direct collapse to explain not only supermassive black holes but also the evolution of galaxies requires a chain of speculative theories. Not only does it require such a thing as direct collapse to occur, but also requires the collapse of 1000s of stars-worth of matter. Furthermore, it still doesn't quite get to the supermassive size (100s of millions of stars) in the short period of just a few hundred million years after the big band.
I'm not pretending to know more, I'm just an avid follower of physics and would love for you to explain away my assumptions :) I'm just surprised that I haven't heard any physicist broach this theory considering that to a layman it makes a lot of sense. THANKS!!!
thanks Doctor Becky, you gave me my dose of outer space in a non pill form, i feel better
Hey,
When you say the black hole is 13e+9 ly away, does it refer to distance (as seen from earth at this moment), time (as data coming to us is 13e+9 ly old) or both ?
Then, same questions about the size if observable universe that I find online to be 93e+9 ly in diameter.
I feel like from the begining of the video it's both for the blakck hole when it cannot possibly be both for the size of the universe (from the little I know universe is estimated to be 13.8e+9 years old).
Watching Becky thought atmospheric optical diffraction - talk about setting the mood :)
that would be shimmer, like maddy from moonlighting.
are there intermediate-mass black holes between steller 1M SM? and how would they form? just accretion of solar massers?
I just bought your book from Amazon. I'll be getting it between the 16th and the 24th of this month.
That or we saw an alien civilization that needed more energy roll up and get it done with a 'just add water' dyson sphere.
Starts video. Instantly checks comments on focus bemoans. Keeps watching the video.
Hello doctor Becky! I have a question about the model of the universe that modern astronomy relies upon. As I am but an astronomical layman can you qualify for me the certainty with which scientific study has reached concerning the expansion of the universe?
To be precise it occurs to me that we are relying upon radiation from the outside universe to inform us of the astrophysical phenomenon happening on large scales.
How can we be certain that the light we are relying upon to evaluate said expansion is not actually being subject to some other physical process that is not expansion.
In other words is there a possible model of reality that matches the data but is not expansion. Is there any research on that possibility or is it already considered a forgone conclusion.
Thanks and sorry for the tough question about the scale of the universe as we know it.
Your spelling is "appauling" too! đ I stayed in the hope of a song and dance number at the end. â€ïžđđș
Very interesting! I'm a computer scientist, so very separated from astrophysics, but it makes intuitive sense, given the ambient temperatures of the early universe, prior to cooling for the first generation of stars, the conditions would be more favorable for direct collapse of pristine gas as described.
If we imagine the density distribution of the early universe, there will be gradients of higher and lower density regions based on the random 'seed' conditions from the Big Bang. Normal galaxy formation and material ejection seem to make sense along the curves of this distribution, but at any local maxima above a critical threshold, there could exist a relatively homogenous 'superdensity' region that would enable direct collapse prior to star formation.
In this scenario, I would expect the stellar-mass direct collapse to be a separate mechanism.
Imagine you're on a planet and then the sun just blinks out into a black hole. That's gotta be a bad day.
That giant collaps makes a lot of sense to me. It might not even be a black hole but just a large region that is falling on itself faster than the surrounding region. From afar it looks like there is a blackhole singularity but once you get there it is just a regular place in space.
(Where the outside gravity looks like inflation from the inside)
Is that cycle of gravitational accretion stopping when radiation disperses the accreted material then starting again (7:01) an explanation for variable stars like Cepheids and 1a supernovae as well as the black holes Dr B mentions? I can see how brightness and length of cycle would correlate in that case, since the longer the accretion phase continues the more material accumulates to glow.
Wow, it's scary when your theory survives through an unsolved mystery into the realms of explanation.
Dr. Becky Pls explain in the heliocentric model the suns moving along the planets etc very fast but we don't feel that speed namely because we are inside the suns sphere of influence which is why we can only feel acceleration not movement... Now just like a car approaches you and passes by you will see the car drive off and your distance from it will ncreases phenomenally. Similarly how long should it take both the voyager space crafts until it falls outside the suns gravitational influence? There should come a time when the voyagers should begin to feel as if they are left behind by the sun or the very little feel if the suns actually speeding up behind them as they move towards another system. Is that a correct assumption?;
Wow, astronomy is getting much more interesting to me. I wonder if you could have matter arrange spontaneously in more lineas fashion so that stars and stuff hit the black hole directly without entering its orbit.
Hey Dr. B, always fascinating and engaging videos.
If we postulate that dark matter is dark because it doesnât interact with light AT ALL then would nât it be immune to the radiative âwindâ. The force of gravity would have cart blanche to compress matter to an astounding degree? This would be especially true in the early Universe with the same amount of matter and dark matter occupying an exponentially smaller space⊠so the density would have to be massively greater.
There seems to be an intimate relationship between galaxies and supermassive black holes. Perhaps the galaxy is simply an accretion disk that formed around a supermassive, direct collapse black hole, in the same way planets form around stars. But on such large scales as galaxies dark matter may play a more important role.
Dr. Becky, the Red Matter is the answer to Direct Collapse Black Holes as shown in Star Trek :-D
Concerning the focus issue: I often watch the channel of andertons music store. They have great image quality and I was very surprised to find out they record everything on smartphones. That might be an easy to use alternative instead of spending a lot to find a dslr with decent autofocus. Also the newest phones have multiple cameras to recognize depth and emulate depth of field and due to ai support becoming crazy good in low light situations.
I dun care about the out of focus ness. I come for the cosmology nerdery! :D (And also to sub to one of my favorite professors from Deep Sky Videos
Question, You mentioned A halo being next to a more energetic faster star forming halo keeping stars from forming in its neighbor ... would a Halo sandwiched between two more energetic halos be compressed toward the middle by its neighbors causing it to become denser and hotter than normal.
In my head it seems to allow for the gas to reach high density without forming to a star and then collapsing in on itself..sorry I think/model things visually in my head so putting things into words is tricky
thank you for the videos. from brazil.
Very interesting! I had not heard of these before.
Also, it's weird hearing you say my name!
Fascinating! So the warm gas would contract little by little in a homogeneous way, but it would be too hot to form individual stars, until the gravitational attraction of the whole cloud was enough to directly collapse into one massive object? Shouldn't there be a brief phase, though, where the object did begin to fuse hydrogen and blew the outer shell of the gas cloud away? Great video, I'll be subscribing! :)
:D
Becky, if the gas in the second halo is too hot to collapse into a star, I assume that means that its outward pressure prevents it from achieving a critical density to achieve fusion. Is that correct? My confusion is that I don't see a path to the destiny of a blackhole (infinite) which doesn't pass through a density that would initiate fusion first (perhaps high but always finite). Where is my logic breaking down? Thanks!
what I learned from this video, is that sound quality is negatively proportional to image quality.
I'm not sure if you are using a camera with an aperture that you can control, but if you use brighter lights, you can use a smaller aperture and this will give you an increased depth of field so that your focus doesn't have to be as exact. If you half the size of the aperture, you have to double the amount (Intensity) of light that you use in order to maintain the same exposure. As video shutter length is set by frame rate, the only way you can "stop down" your lens is to add more light.
Also, if you are able to set your camera to manual focus, there is more "in-focus" light behind the focal plane than in front of it. Rule of thumb is that there 1/3 distance in front of the focal plane that will be in focus and 2/3 distance behind. What that distance is, is determined by the aperture size. The smaller the aperture you use, the greater the distance of in focus light in front of and behind the focal plane. So what you can do is focus so when you set your focal plane a little bit closer to the camera instead of the back wall, so that if you are a little bit off when you go and sit in front of the camera, chances are you will still be more in focus than not.
Also if you have choice of zoom, wide angle lenses have greater perceived depth of field than a telephoto lens. So all things being equal, the wider angle lens will appear to have more in focus than the telephoto lens. That being said, people usually look "better" when photographed with telephoto lenses, which leads back to adding more lighting so that you can use a smaller aperture to get the desired depth of field.
Addendum: if you are able to tether your camera to your computer, you can use your computer screen as a monitor for what is being filmed, this way, when you get into position, you can look at the large computer screen from where you are sitting and see if the focus is okay, and you can keep checking every so often as you are recording to make sure that your focus doesn't drift.
Yep... Definitely need to be using brighter (more) light. You only have a few inches of depth of field. As you seem to have a lot of motion in your delivery, you are moving in and out of your area of focus. No matter how carefully you focus with this amount of light, you aren't going to stay in focus because you only have a few inches that you can move, and it would probably affect your delivery of your script if you are sitting still.
If you can't get more light now, another quick fix would be to change the sensitivity of the sensor. It might increase the noise a little bit, but increasing the sensitivity of the sensor would be the equivalent of adding more light until you can actually add more light... So doubling the sensitivity of the sensor would allow you to half the size of the aperture given the same level of light and shutter speed.
During the early seconds of the big bang, the universe was incredibly dense. Why didn't it form a bunch of black holes at that time?
Love your video's, Dr Becky: I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang theory, but believe that we live in a pulsating 'Big Bounce' Universe where a cycle of cosmic expansion and contraction repeats itself and always has. In particular I feel that your video implicitly lends credibility to this theory: the discovery in 2017 of an SMBH at a distance of 13 billion light years (i.e. the SMBH image comes from a point in time when the Universe was much smaller) can only make sense if we accept that there were ready-made stellar objects and bodies falling inwards towards the cosmic centre at the end of a 'contraction phase' - perhaps merging and accreting more dust and gas on the way, and becoming thereby more massive. After a time a certain critical point is reached where you have a chain of supermassive supernovae which propel the Universe's contents back outward again. The existence of an SMBH at such a narrow radius to the cosmic circum-centre would make sense in this 'Big Bounce' context, because matter would be pre-existing in atomic form and wouldn't have to go through an 'inflation phase' and then the long-drawn-out process of galactic accretion and star formation. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this? Do you not think an SMBH at such close proximity to the Universe's centre implies a 'Big Bounce' systole / diastole type Universe and makes a 'Big Bang' scenario less likely?
At some point in the direct collapse scenario the pressure becomes high enough to fuse hydrogen atoms, so what prevents the fusion from occurring?
Interesting idea, but help me out on one thing, if it is too energetic to allow the gas to collapse into a star, how would it collapse into an even denser object, a black hole? Wouldn't it still have the same issue as forming stars?