I believe he is a particle physics theorist, whereas this topic is astronomy and astrophysics, so I guess not _exactly_ his wheelhouse when talking about a "relativistically broadened iron K fluorescence line" , or "energy-resolved light curves"... But he is being very humble, yes, and quite clearly he understood 99% of it! It's actually quite a readable paper - most watchers of this channel would be able to follow it for sure, apart from some stuff about the spectrums of X-rays at various keV ranges and the stuff I quoted above, most jargon and concepts are explained well in plain English, no huge reams of equations or peculiar units. (There's no pictures though!)

People who know their stuff are happy to admit ignorance of areas outside their core field. People who never admit to not understanding something, probably don’t understand very much.

That's code for some of the paper is BS fiction

It's proof that papers are nonsense and not meant to exist.

@@joshuarosen6242 never is a long word. it can take a scientist 50 yrs to truly understand something. 25 if he doesnt have distractions. and 5 if hes given a team of 5 smart scientists around him to help him understand it.

Yeah it's called a knowledge of physics lol

The only other time I've seen something synced like that so perfectly was that one video synchronizing all of the "extremely dangerous to our democracy" bits.

It's almost as if they read the same paper! ...

Pretty much every one of the sixty symbol videos is edited exactly like this, y'all have been drinking too much conspiracy juice

@@brekkoh 😂😂

When were u born if u dont mind my asking?

@@lastbornrelic3430 according to the black hole Wikipedia page: before 1971 😉

@@z4zuse and wise words u would wish to share to a measly 7th grader?

@@lastbornrelic3430 don’t trust edited comments

@@z4zuse there was a comma at the end of the other 1 instead of a q mark so I'll ask again no edit anything to share to someone young some tips for life?

You pervert!!!!

belter🤣😂

🤣🤣🍻 cheers

Oh my!

Maybe they read the same technical papers before they did this video?

Definitely.

Editing + making the right questions, I'd assume

They're both answering similar questions about the exact same paper so it makes sense the dialogue would mesh easily.

We don’t say that word anymore

How about a coronal mass ejection?

Yes like when I brush the hair at the back of my head over the top to hide the bald spot. Maybe we have 4 types of geodesic: 1 = straight lines 2 = light bent slightly around Sun e.g. during eclipse 3 = a geodesic like you describe 4 = null geodesic?'Is that when light just goes nowhere? It just spins around on the spot due to extreme g?

Well but how would you describe a geodesic apart from being number one: A straight line?

@@askemervigbahnson333 A geodesic is a concept in differential geometry. Define a _connection_ on a manifold (a connection being a covariant derivative that allows us to specify derivatives along the tangent vectors to the manifold and in turn, meaningfully perform parallel transport of vectors on that manifold). A geodesic on the manifold is then a curve such that the connection acting on a tangent vector along the curve preserves its direction _i.e._ at every point the vector describing how the curve is changing points along the curve itself. In a manifold equipped with a _metric_ , the geodesic is the "shortest" distance between two points, but that path will not be a straight line except for flat, Euclidean space. In general relativity geodesics have a special significance; they are the paths along which bodies are in free fall. This is why orbits are curved. The orbiting body is taking the shortest path _in its own spacetime geometry_ . Null geodesics are geodesics followed by massless particles like photons. They have no proper time associated with them, but they can be curved just like the geodesics of massive particles.

If you can't explain it simple you don't understand it well enough.

@@Bartooc That is true...if you really have a thorough, close understanding of something, you should easily be able to break it down into layman's terms and speak in a conversational way about it.

A reflection is simply light bouncing off something. A light echo is when light from a source (which you may or may not be able to see directly) is seen when it bounces off surrounding material and reaches the observer after a perceptible delay.

Well, it is a new kind of observation. Confirmation might not be as much as refutation but it's still something.

Most likely by looking for flare ups and when they seem to be repeated in the surrounding material. Also, there's always some variation in the light output of objects like these. They aren't always outputting a consistent level of brightness. If you can record a graph of the light output over time from the source then you can try and match a similar pattern of light emissions from the reflecting material.

He explains it in the video, lower amplitude flashes.

The accretion disk reflects light more like a sheet of paper than a mirror. Light hitting it bounces off in many directions. So, on all parts some is bouncing towards us and some is bouncing away.

Yourself?

...and this 800 mill is only a small distance in the obserwable universe, and obserwable universe is only apart o greater space of unknown size :)

calculation

@@vinlebo88 orly

It *slightly* diminishes the “well actually” comments - although does increase the “well duh” comments like yours. ;)

@@sixtysymbols If I was a content creator, I’d probably permanently have the phrase “well actually” (and similar) muted in my KZfaq comments and Twitter feed. As well as making liberal use of the muting feature for whatever else people like to nag me about.

exactly like that

They must have spent many minutes on their NewTek Video Toaster.

I'm glad they labeled it as an "artistic representation" or I would have though it was real.

Pretty sure it was made like that to show that it's not like your typically smooth magnetic field you'd get from a bar magnet on a larger scale - from what the video says it seems to be much more chaotic with fields interlacing (the twisting the profs mentioned)

@@Sralit I thought so as well. It's probably very specific to the experiments they were already doing before this discovery

The are no non-rotating holes, the Schwarzschild metric is only an approximation. All black-holes rotate due to the conservation of angular momentum. Why did you think it only occurs in non-rotating black-holes, does it say that in this video?

The problem is really that "black holes" are not really holes, more a multidimensional hypersurface, the material falls onto rather than into the "hole"...what appears as a "well" is merely the spacetime being curved so strongly by the enormous gravity of the black hole.

@@waynedarronwalls6468 I think we’re looking as space time as a 2D fabric. Even though it bends, the black hole should be like a sphere no matter how close it gets to singularity, it still pulls from all sides, not just one side.

Imagine a sphere, like a planet. There can be something behind it, right? Same thing with a black hole -- there can be something that is on the other sie of the hole. Not inside it, but past it.

@@nmarbletoe8210 I understand that but if a planet has a gravitational force of a black hole, it would pull in everything from all sides therefore there is no front or back, it’s either in or out. I often think if we have this “fabric like space time” wrong. Is there an up and a down side to this fabric? What would that mean in a practically a never ending universe? That is what’s confusing us about some things. Yes, I know, Einstein can’t be wrong but you never know.

Never ask a celestial object their age!

It's a sphere. (about the) same shape as a ball. "Behind" means the black hole is inbetween us and something

@@vinlebo88 I get what you're saying, but for some reason i can't seem to visualize it. Everything would be getting pulled in from all directions in 3 or more dimensions. To picture that seems impossible to me. I've seen pictures of black holes and they don't really help. It breaks my brain...lol I can picture a ball or like a sphere type shape created by a void of sorts, but then when I to try to picture everything being pulled in from all directions in 3d or more....my "model" breaks. maybe not knowing where everything goes or how to envision something so complex is just beyond my capabilities. lol which is why I think i have a hard time with a "behind/backside" of a black hole.

@@jasonH5997 Animations might help you

and then goes behind, so it comes to us from behind

Lol. So sad a thinking process

It doesn't change what we know about this black hole. It doesn't even change what we thought would happen to these x-rays. It's simply more evidence that our current understanding of physics models the universe accurately. That evidence is worthwhile to gather because without it, and other evidence like it, we could not have understanding much less models to apply to other problems.

General relativity doesn't say why energy curves spacetime. It just says energy & curvature are equal. Saying 2 things are equal without knowing why is called "fine-tuning". It could be Lord Buddha did it with space magic. If so then a theory with Lord Buddha in it is more fundamental than GR

@@alwaysdisputin9930 And yeah well i think GR is a theory that is fundamental enough for cosmology and physics to be called fundamental but i know as you say that it is not superfundamental not as much as the time and dimensions themselves.

@@henrikl...1264 Yeah is possible that GR is actually just the result of some simpler theory. But, it is (I hear) very simple itself. idk if simpler = more fundamental. Someone once said "It is fundamental if it is useful"

Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Death

hi

Because they are basing it on the real life observations not on believes like you.

@@Bartooc "Real life" observations. Yeah, right.

@@calinculianu Ha, so you're one of those flat Earther nuts? 😂

You can see the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye and it's 2,500,000 light years away. It's not about how far away it is. It's about how bright it is and how much light your telescope can collect. There are thousands of amateurs building their own backyard telescopes who can regularly view galaxies of more than 300,000,000 light years away using nothing bigger than an 8" telescope. So can professionals using telescopes ten times larger see things much farther way? Yes, absolutely.

@@Barabbas7798 Ignorance is forgivable, but willingly remaining ignorant is not. There's hundreds of years worth of research for you to catch up on.

@@HermanVonPetri you are real hard behind that keyboard aren't you Polly

@@HermanVonPetri What part of that is ignorant? BTW

@@Barabbas7798 Ignorance as in uninformed. In the sense that you haven't bothered to educate yourself about how these things are known. You're asking questions, and that's great. But you're just stopping there claiming you know better, when in reality you just are too lazy to put in the work to find out. The next step is to go and find the information that will answer those questions. These are scientific fields that are built upon literally hundreds of years of study from thousands of researchers worldwide that can't be answered in a KZfaq comment. Take an astronomy course. Go to the library. Read about Hubble, Chandrasekhar, and Hawking; stellar parallax, supernovae, and relativity. Why should anyone value your uninformed opinion when it's clear you don't value the contributions of people who have literally dedicated their life's work to answering these questions.

Also, the "artist's impression" looks nothing like a black hole, which is additionally confusing to people who haven't, for example, seen the great representation in Interstellar. How is it that in the rendering in this video the x-rays bend around the black hole but not the visible light?

You have to watch this video in the context of the paper published. While it does bends ALL electromagnetic waves, including visible light. They used XMM Newton to observe the black hole, which is a X-ray telescope. There is also nothing wrong to say you can see light behind the blackhole, because that's what you are seeing. The light gets bend from behind the black hole into the telescope. If you want to be more clear, I guess you can say "the light behind black hole that is outside the event horizon". The video has already stated that everything that is inside the black hole can't escape though, and I think the target audience for this type of videos would know that already

@@s87343jim I'm not criticising the paper, I'm criticising its presentation in this video.

This is from "behind the black hole", but it isn't as "trivial" as gravitational lensing where we are seeing objects far behind the lensing structure. This is from right behind the black hole -- more like being able to see a label on the other side of a lamppost (which itself is on the moon).

@@AbiGail-ok7fc yes, and if you've ever seen a realistic depiction of a black hole, then you already know that you see both sides of the accretion disk as a ring around the black hole. I would expect the target audience of this channel to know that, which is why somehow denying that at first only to then go "psych!" is so confusing.

Ok, that concept does make more sense. I always thought the idea of a black hole being 2-dimensional and pulling in things from one direction like a tornado or whirlpool was silly and cartoonish. Nothing is 2-dimensional in space. It would HAVE to be a sphere. From OUR perspective it looks 2-dimensional, but of course if a black hole is formed by a star collapsing in on itself then the gravity would pull from all directions, forming a sphere. The "back side" of a black hole should look pretty much the same as the side we can see. It's the INTERIOR of a black hole that's so mysterious.