365 | Vitor Cardoso on Why Black Holes Are Special

Black holes, as Stephen Hawking discovered, do grow old: they emit radiation, lose mass, and eventually evaporate away. But our fascination with black holes never grows old. This is especially true today, as we are seeing a flood of new data and intriguing theoretical ideas, which both tests the limits of Einstein's general relativity and teach us new things about the astrophysical universe. At the Center of Gravity https://simonscbhsg.com/vitor-cardoso/ at the University of Copenhagen, they are currently celebrating Black Hole Week https://the-center-of-gravity.com/features/black-hole-week-2026/, which provides an excellent opportunity to talk with Center director Vitor Cardoso about what we've been learning about these singular cosmic objects. Use code MINDSCAPE at https://monarch.com/ to get your first year of Monarch Core half off at just $50. #ad Upgrade your everyday and get free shipping and 365-day returns at https://quince.com/MINDSCAPE. #ad See what ElevenAgents can do for your specific workflows at https://elevenlabs.io/MINDSCAPE. #ad Blog post with transcript: https://preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/08/24/365-vitor-cardoso-on-why-black-holes-are-special/ Support Mindscape on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll. Vitor Cardoso received his Ph. D. in physics from the Instituto Superior Técnico in Portugal. He is currently a Villum Investigator and Director of the Center of Gravity https://the-center-of-gravity.com/ at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and a Distinguished Professor at Técnico. Web site https://vitorcardoso.strong-gr.com/ University of Copenhagen web page https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/en/persons/vitor-cardoso/ Simons Collaboration page https://simonscbhsg.com/vitor-cardoso/ Google Scholar publications https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D_p4FJEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 0:28Speaker 01

  Whether you're buying, renting, or selling, Zillow can help make your someday today to help find a home that fits where you are in life, or that apartment that's a little closer to where you want to be. Zillow has the right information, tools, and support to help turn your future home into a reality, because someday starts today. Visit zillow.com/today to get started.

• 0:53Sean Carroll?

  Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. I'm not sure if you know this, but if you're listening to this podcast, the week it is being published, it is Black Hole Week. I don't know if it's Black Hole Week all over the world, or even all throughout the galaxy, but in Copenhagen, it is Black Hole Week. Black Hole Week is a thing that is sponsored by the Center of Gravity. Maybe it's the Center for Gravity, but it sounds sexier if it's the Center of Gravity, at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. It started two years ago, when they realized that two years ago was the 50th anniversary of Stephen Hawking showing that black holes actually emitted radiation and really changing our view of what black holes are.

• 1:37Sean Carroll?

  And they decided to make it a biannual thing. Every two years, they're going to have a celebration of black holes that lasts a week long in Copenhagen, and there's various events and so forth. Hopefully, it catches on worldwide. I think that black holes are important enough that we could use them as an excuse to celebrate science and all the different ways that science intersects with our lives. And today's guest is the perfect person to talk to us about black holes. Vitor Cardoso is the Director of the Center of Gravity at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. And the reason why he's the perfect person, besides his title, is that he is a theorist who sort of grew up thinking about how black holes work in general relativity, and string theory, and with particle physics and things like that.

• 2:22Sean Carroll?

  And in this modern era, where we're having enormous amounts of data come in from gravitational wave observatories, from the Event Horizon Telescope and elsewhere, that are teaching us about properties of black holes, he has been very active in that observational program as well, thinking about what we can learn about black holes from the data that we're collecting. And I think that's why it's worth having a podcast episode about black holes in the middle of Black Hole Week, because the landscape is changing. You know, black holes are a different kind of thing now in the practice of science than they were just 20 years ago. Not only do we have enormous progress theoretically in thinking about how black holes work with

• 3:04Sean Carroll?

  quantum gravity and with other classical theories of gravity, the behavior of black holes in astrophysical situations, but we have all these new telescopes and observatories that are teaching us about them. So, we're going to do the basics of black holes, but then we're going to get into what we're learning. Like, what do you know that you didn't know when you see two black holes spiral together and you're catching their gravitational waves? What are the future prospects for new observatories? How does this all intersect with quantum gravity and other theories like that? The scope of black hole physics is enormous, and it's moving forward very quickly. So, there's a lot to talk about. Let's go.

• 3:59Sean Carroll?

  Vitor Cardoso, welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.

• 4:02Speaker 03

  Thank you. Pleasure to be here.

• 4:04Sean Carroll?

  So, every time I have a biologist on the podcast, I ask them to define what a gene is, and they always give me different answers. So, for astrophysicists, I gotta ask how you define what a black hole is?

• 4:19Speaker 03

  That's a wonderful question, because I think it really depends also on the type of astrophysicist you ask. To, I think, for somebody doing observations, a black hole is a point-like object, which is very massive and dark. And that's the end of it. It kind of controls the gravitational interaction with nearby matter. But if you ask somebody a bit more like me, who's, who works on theory and is interested in the fundamental concepts, then a black hole is a very different piece. It's an object that curves spacetime to the extent that time stops at the event horizon. It has an event horizon, so it's a very special geometry in the universe.

• 5:03Speaker 03

  It's a very special place out there in the universe. And, and, you know, this question therefore goes to the small-scale structure of this type of objects. I'm interested, event horizons means I'm actually zooming in on the structure of the object, rather than zooming out as an astrophysicist would do when they do observations.

• 5:23Sean Carroll?

  It's already very interesting, because there are different kinds of scientists out there, different kind of physicists and astrophysicists. And I try to like, I enjoy giving people the lay of the land. And you're kind of in between as someone who's a theoretical physicist, thinking about black holes, but also thinking about the observations and what we can learn from the data.

• 5:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think that's, there's a reason for that. Our field, if there is such a thing as our field, changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

• 5:53Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 5:54Speaker 03

  I was raised to do theory, to look at mathematical equations, solve them numerically, and don't really even care about observations or about practical applications of that in observations, because there were no observations, in essence. I mean, black holes are really distant from our everyday experience. In the last 10 years, maybe more, of course, but everything changed. We started seeing black holes with gravitational waves in 2015. And, you know, in the last five, six years, we've seen images of black holes, of matter close to the horizon of a black hole. We're doing interferometry, so you're seeing stars passing really close to black holes.

• 6:35Speaker 03

  So, all of a sudden, somebody that was doing purely theory is now thinking, hey, wait a minute, what I'm doing actually has an application. I want to know if we're seeing the stuff I predict.

• 6:45Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 6:46Speaker 03

  You know?

• 6:46Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. Are there a lot of people like you who, you know, grew up thinking about spacetime metrics and quantum fields and things like that, near black holes, who are now thinking about ring downs and templates and observational constraints?

• 7:03Speaker 03

  I think we're many, yes. And those who are not yet here are trying to do the transition, and we need that. We need new ideas, we need new people that come with fresh concepts. You know, just, just the very concept of a black hole. How can we know that we're looking at a black hole, other than just saying, oh, it looks very massive and it looks dark?

• 7:25Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 7:26Speaker 03

  Just this question, how do we test the concept of a black hole in itself requires a lot of effort, a lot of thinking, and understanding what observations are giving us. So, you know, it does require a transition from one field to the other, and that we speak both languages, I think.

• 7:44Sean Carroll?

  Is it worth going backward even a little bit more? We went backward 10 years already, but could you sort of explain to us a little bit about the historical reception of the idea of black holes? I mean, at least in the last, since general relativity. You know, we don't need to go back to Laplace or whatever, but Einstein went to his grave not knowing about black holes. And it did take a while for the concept to really catch on among physicists and astronomers.

• 8:09Speaker 03

  Well, actually, that's fascinating, because, you know, Eddington didn't believe that nature would allow something like eternal gravitational collapse, so black holes to form. Einstein was aware of something like a coordinate singularity or a singularity at the horizon. He didn't like it either. In fact, he has a famous work where he tries to show that these objects just don't form. And the way he tried to show it was that he was trying to build one of these objects, and he showed that matter would just reach the speed of light outside the horizon, and then he would conclude, therefore, it's because we cannot go beyond the speed of light, this stuff doesn't form.

• 8:54Speaker 03

  Nature finds some way out of that. But then in the 70s, observations were giving us stuff that we just couldn't explain in any other way, right? So, there was this immense theoretical effort to dissect, to understand all the physics of black holes, that finally, in the last 10, 20 years, has been met by observations and experiments.

• 9:17Sean Carroll?

  It is kind of fascinating to me how scientists throughout history, at least the parts of history that I know about, let's say, the last 200 years, will often derive a wonderful equation, and the equation fits the data perfectly well, and the equation has some implications they don't like. So, they just won't believe it, right? Whether it's black holes, or antimatter, or the Big Bang, or many worlds in quantum mechanics, you know, like, we don't often have the courage to face up to the implications of our own equations.

• 9:52Speaker 03

  That's a beautiful question, and I've but there's also something mysterious about it. How I get asked this question so much. How can you study black holes with pen and paper and a supercomputer? And then you're trying to tell me that the object and the implications you find on your screen tell us something about what nature produces millions of light years away. There's something intense about this, that that the universe is indeed written in some mathematical language, and it doesn't go astray from that those rules, right?

• 10:26Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 10:27Speaker 03

  But I think there's also something else in that, which is, well, in this particular case, we also know that the theory itself breaks down inside of of black holes. There is there's a case to go after and try to check detail by detail whether the predictions of general relativity hold true close to black holes.

• 10:48Sean Carroll?

  Uh huh. Yeah, we will. We will definitely get there. Let me let me just. But one more sort of preparatory question, because you remind me of I was actually an astronomy major as an undergraduate and a graduate student. In fact, I have no degrees in physics. I don't know anything about physics. It's all astronomy. But I was shocked at how because the professors I worked with as an undergraduate were just doing photometry, not even spectroscopy, right? They would take a light curve of some eclipsing binary star, and you could show them with this light curve, and they would read off this elaborate story about, oh, there's an accretion disk and a comospherically active star and whatever. And they're able to milk all of this detail out of very little data. And I'm wondering, is that the impression

• 11:33Sean Carroll?

  you get these days from much more sophisticated observations?

• 11:37Speaker 03

  Well, not yet. I do get the impression we're moving in that direction. But because this field gravitational wave astronomy is built, the the foundations is called match filtering, which means we need to have extremely accurate predictions from general relativity to go and dig the signal under the noise. It's still, I would call it a precision science. We know to top percent level what we're going after. And so this is not a hand waving kind of science.

• 12:13Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. Okay, good. So let's back up then, and let's dig into some of the details about what someone like you does for a living. Famously, black holes are not that varying in their structure, right? Like, there's a no hair theorem that says that all black holes are kind of simple. Can you tell us about that?

• 12:33Speaker 03

  Yeah, so there's a there's a result, a mathematical result in general relativity that says if everything is devoid of matter, so vacuum, okay, then black holes need to belong to a certain family. We call it the Kerr family. And the Kerr family basically is specified entirely by two parameters, the mass of the black hole and the rotation of the black hole, how fast the black hole is rotating. Any black hole in the universe. That means of all the trillions of black holes we think are out there, all of them are specified entirely by just two parameters. And kind of maybe it doesn't look like much,

• 13:16Speaker 03

  but it is. It's like saying, you know, we have nine billion people in the planet, and all of them, and any of them are totally specified by their height and their mass, which is obviously not true.

• 13:28Sean Carroll?

  Right. And there's also charge in there, but you left that out.

• 13:33Speaker 03

  Yes, there's also charge, but we think that the universe doesn't really like charge very much. Whenever there's electromagnetic charge somewhere, we we go and get another to neutralize it. Because the universe, as we see it, is neutral to a very good extent. But let me just say, this is one of the things where people like me and thousands of colleagues are important, because this no hair theorem, the fact that black holes are fully specified by two parameters, as you were saying, it has ingredients. The proof, the mathematical proof, requires some ingredients. And one of them is the the geometry has to be stationary,

• 14:13Speaker 03

  which means it's not varying in time, and it's vacuum. And so we need to think beyond this. Clearly, you and Aisha are talking here. So vacuum is not

• 14:25Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 14:26Speaker 03

  a good assumption. And because we are talking, stationarity is also things happen in the universe. And so one of our jobs is to go and say, Okay, so let's now try to break these assumptions. How is that going to change?

• 14:38Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 14:39Speaker 03

  The object? How is that going to change the emission, the dynamics of these guys?

• 14:43Sean Carroll?

  I remember reading a quote, and I think it was from Shandra Sehkar, I'm not sure, but how struck he was with this beautiful fact that literally every black hole in the universe is precisely described by the Kerr metric and just the Kerr metric. The Kerr, by the way, is K E R R for those listening at home. But I remember when I read the quote, my immediate response was, except, no, none of them are, because there's stuff around them. There's you're not embedded in empty space. There's a warping of spacetime because there's extra stuff. So that those details might someday matter.

• 15:20Speaker 03

  That is true. But so I use that quote very often in my talks. But I think Shandra Sehkar had a history of dealing with stars and planets. I mean, he's one of the big names of people doing stellar physics. And when you do stellar physics, you realize that the equation of state, the relation, the exact relation between pressure and density of matter, does change the global structure of a star, for instance.

• 15:46Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 15:47Speaker 03

  Whereas black holes, because gravitational collapse acts so efficiently, it just cleans them of any detail, of any other detail. They're really just simple curled up vacuum.

• 15:58Sean Carroll?

  Fair enough. Now, I've been helping my mom move into a new apartment. And let me tell you, calling companies to do something as basic as changing an address can be torture. The people at the call centers, they're all working from scripts. And honestly, they don't want to be doing this any more than you do. It's an old outdated system, and it's long overdue for a rethink. That's where Eleven Agents comes in. Eleven Labs makes something called Eleven Agents, and it's not a chatbot, it's not a phone tree, and it's not some demo that falls apart the second a real customer asks a real question. Eleven Agents by Eleven Labs is a voice AI agent that actually listens, understands, and resolves, not just routes. It can look up your account, process your request, and

• 16:43Sean Carroll?

  escalate intelligently. If somehow we ever need a call center here at Mindscape, I would use Eleven Agents. And if you run a business with any kind of customer operation, support, sales, or onboarding, you can start with the demo at eleven labs dot I O slash Mindscape. See what Eleven Agents can do for your specific workflows. Guided rollout capacity is limited each quarter. So if you want to be one of the first companies with a customer experience that people actually talk about in a positive way, now is the time. Eleven labs dot I O slash Mindscape. That's E L E V E N L A B S dot I O slash Mindscape.

• 17:26Sean Carroll?

  August is the perfect time to hit reset before the autumn rush begins. And honestly, I can't think of a better place to start than my closet. That's why I love shopping at Quince. Quince is all about fewer, better pieces. Their clothes are made with premium materials built to last and designed to become the ones you reach for day after day. Quince specializes in everyday staples that work harder, like their ultra soft organic cotton tees and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're versatile, timeless, and transition seamlessly from a casual workday to dinner out. I know that I can hang on to the same worn out shirts for too long, but Quince makes it easy to upgrade. They have premium denim and tailored

• 18:07Sean Carroll?

  chinos from just $60 with the kind of perfect fit structure and high quality fabrics you'd expect from a luxury designer brand. My Quince linen shirts go with just about everything I usually wear. So upgrade your everyday. Download the Quince app for offers that are only on the app, or go to quince dot com slash Mindscape. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Q U I N C E dot com slash Mindscape. I mean, I got the spirit of it. And Shandra Sehkar, obviously, is someone we all should admire for the right reasons. Maybe one thing that I should have said earlier, but let's get it right for the audience. For what you're talking about, and what we're going to talk

• 18:52Sean Carroll?

  about for the rest of the episode, what happens inside the event horizon is completely irrelevant. Is that correct?

• 19:00Speaker 03

  As far as we know, it's by definition, it's totally relevant. By definition, the horizon is this surface beyond which we have no access. So it's causally disconnected from us. There's no experiment we can do in the exterior that let us see inside the black hole. Yeah.

• 19:19Sean Carroll?

  So this is kind of what inspired some people to say, like, you can think of the black hole as just this two dimensional boundary at the event horizon, and it doesn't matter what's going on inside it. You made me think of it because, of course, for stars, it matters a lot what's going on inside.

• 19:35Speaker 03

  Totally, but that's, I think that's also what makes black holes such a special thing. I mean, so suppose you're told there's a box with all sorts of things and precious materials in, unimaginable things, but no one can open it. You have no access to that box. This is exactly what a black hole is, right? All the secrets that we think there are about quantum gravity or quantum effects in strong gravitational fields, the fate of the star that collapses, all of that is hidden from us. So it's very different from anything else we know of around us.

• 20:12Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. Okay, good. So we have mass and we have spin. So let me just ask questions about the actual values of these things in the real world. Is it one of these things where spin could exist in principle, but in fact, most black holes are pretty stationary, or the other way around?

• 20:30Speaker 03

  Well, I mean, so rotation is inherited from the progenitor. So if I have a star that suddenly runs out of fuel and it starts collapsing, it will carry the rotation, we call it angular momentum, it will carry the rotation as it collapses. It's true, on the other hand, that black holes spin slowly. There's also a result in general relativity that says that the rotation of a black hole is limited by an upper number. Okay? And if it goes beyond that, it cannot be a black hole, it has to be something weird.

• 21:09Speaker 03

  That means that as stars, on the other hand, carry a lot more on the average, a lot more angular momentum than a black hole with the same mass can hold. So as gravitational collapse proceeds, the star has to get rid of the angular momentum. It expels angular momentum in winds and so on. It's, maybe it's good to have an idea of what exactly we're talking about.

• 21:33Sean Carroll?

  Sure.

• 21:34Speaker 03

  So if, if a child takes a spinning top, okay, like just a toy, and makes the spinning top, puts it to spin on a table, the angular momentum that this toy has is orders of magnitude above that which a black hole could carry. Okay, so from this way of measuring...

• 21:56Sean Carroll?

  You mean, I'm sorry, you mean like per mass or something like that? A black hole is very big.

• 22:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, per mass. So what I mean is, there's a dimensionless combination of angular momentum, which is of rotation, angular momentum over the square of the mass.

• 22:10Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 22:11Speaker 03

  This number for a black hole is very small. And what I'm saying is, a child can produce something which is orders of magnitude above this.

• 22:20Sean Carroll?

  Okay. And you did sort of say something provocative in there that I'll let you elaborate on. You said like, if it did have more angular momentum, it would be something very weird. Does that mean it just can't have more angular momentum than that? Or are there weird things that...

• 22:39Speaker 03

  That's an open question, that's an open question. Maybe, let me be again, very practical. If our planet, the Earth, would suddenly decide to collapse to a black hole, and everything that composes the Earth would fall onto the black hole, it could not be a black hole because it's spinning too fast. And what the equations would tell us is, there would be no horizon.

• 23:04Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 23:04Speaker 03

  Right? So, so we would be able to see whatever happens inside, and we don't have a theory for that.

• 23:11Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 23:12Speaker 03

  We don't have a theory that takes us all the way in a collapsed object with too much angular momentum. And we call, so we try to protect ourselves from this. We call it the censor, the cosmic censorship, which says, you know, there will always be an horizon protecting us from when gravitational collapse happens. But this is pretty much an open issue in physics. We do not know if the conjecture is true or not.

• 23:37Sean Carroll?

  That's why we do both theory and experiment, right? We've got to figure these things out. It's a, it's a journey.

• 23:43Speaker 03

  That's true, and we saw when we do physics, gravitational physics, in a number of spacetime dimensions higher than four, we have seen cosmic censorship failing. We have seen, all of this goes to, yeah, doesn't work.

• 23:59Sean Carroll?

  Okay, let's go back to the real world then a little bit. When I was young, when I was your age, we thought that black holes would arise from explosions of massive stars, and, you know, the typical black hole would be a few times the mass of the sun. But now, of course, we have data, we're not just guessing. What is the distribution of different kinds of masses of black holes?

• 24:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, so, so in gravitational wave science, we have seen black holes which are more massive than we'd expect. We would expect some mass, we call it a mass gap, no black holes in a certain mass range. We see black holes exist all the way up to 120 solar masses. We don't really know how they form. But if we look at the beginning of the universe, we are also seeing objects that seem to be black holes way more massive than we thought they could be, way earlier than we thought they would form. Possibly they form out of the gravitational collapse of clouds, of dust, but that's still pretty much an ongoing debate.

• 25:04Sean Carroll?

  Maybe you can give the audience some feeling for why physicists are so surprised at all these black holes with different masses? Because like, how hard can it be to make a black hole?

• 25:17Speaker 03

  Well, that's a wonderful point. So if you, if I'm given stars across a mass range, if I'm given a star which has 10 solar masses, or 100 solar masses, or 2,000 solar masses, I can easily ask the star, just burn the fuel and collapse a black hole. The problem is that if I try to form one of these stars above 80 solar masses, for example, the star becomes unstable, it doesn't want to be there. And, and we don't really have an elegant way to get across this gap, to tell the star, you know, just stay put, be stable, burn the fuel, and then collapse a black hole. That's one of the issues that we're having.

• 26:02Sean Carroll?

  So it would, if you had a big cloud that you were trying to make a 100 solar mass star from, our current state of the art says it would just break up into several stars.

• 26:10Speaker 03

  That's correct. That's correct. So of course, you can always say, well, okay, that's true, but then why don't I assemble a black hole via, I collapse a last massive star, then I form a black hole, then I collide it with another black hole, and I grow this way? The, the problem with this is that, you know, the black hole is not such a populated place. So it's hard to merge two black holes. Black holes are really tiny for the mass they have. So it's hard to make them come together and just start growing in this way.

• 26:43Sean Carroll?

  And so, okay, but so what is the population census of the black holes? So we have these 30 to 100 mass black holes, and I know that we have supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies, so like, what does the distribution look like?

• 26:58Speaker 03

  Well, we have a pretty good understanding up until when they're 200 solar masses. We know the rate, we know how many they are, how many collide per year. The LIGO, Virgo gravitational wave network has been giving us these numbers. We have also a very good understanding that all the galaxies have supermassive black holes, and I mean by this, a 1 million to 1 billion solar mass black hole. They sink towards the center of the star as the millions of years pass. And of course, you know, if you were given a brain, then you're thinking, there must be a link between the two kind of populations.

• 27:36Sean Carroll?

  That was going to be my question, yeah?

• 27:38Speaker 03

  Yeah. There should be intermediate mass black holes. We have some tentative evidence for them, but not really any substantial observation of black holes which are 10,000 solar masses, for example. Hopefully, you know, the coming decade or two will show us these black holes in the gravitational spectrum.

• 27:59Sean Carroll?

  Well, it's a good example of how observations and experiments matter. It's not that there, those black holes aren't there, it's just that we have detectors in LIGO and Virgo that are not tuned to find them, right?

• 28:13Speaker 03

  That's totally true. And, you know, we're surprised all the time. We were building this amazing device called LIGO, and Virgo also in Europe, and we thought we were gonna, we were building it to neutron stars. Actually, they were kind of designed so that the sweet spot would be on the mass of neutron stars. And all of a sudden, we realized, oh, wait a minute, we're just catching black holes after black holes after black holes. So we're always being surprised, right?

• 28:42Sean Carroll?

  Well, there's a rule of thumb that every time you look at the universe with a different technology, you're surprised. You see something you didn't think you were going to see before.

• 28:51Speaker 03

  Yeah, which is also kind of a stimulus to go after new technology to see things we haven't seen before, yeah.

• 28:58Sean Carroll?

  What about, what's your opinion on very tiny black holes, much less than the mass of the sun?

• 29:06Speaker 03

  So those are harder to form with the traditional classical gravitational collapse, just because it's hard to form, we know how to form planets like the Earth, the moon, and whatnot, but those are not gonna collapse into black holes because pressure there is just gonna hold the system forever. So we think we might be able to form tiny black holes out of, we call it quantum fluctuations in the beginning of the universe. We have not seen any of this yet. There's claims flying around that maybe we have seen a couple of them, but the signal to noise ratio is really just too small, meaning there seems

• 29:51Speaker 03

  to be something there, but it's really just claims. This would be an extraordinary claim. To say we've seen a pair of objects colliding and these guys have a mass smaller than, say, one solar mass. Then I think the least radical explanation would be, this should be two black holes that have to have been formed in the beginning of the universe out of some quantum process. This is amazing. This would be amazing.

• 30:20Sean Carroll?

  That would be amazing. What is our best chance for making that happen someday?

• 30:25Speaker 03

  Continue, continue observations. I mean, I think if they're out there, as years go by, the evidence, the signal to noise ratio, we call it, would just keep on growing. So if we keep the instruments on and they exist at some point, we will have substantial evidence for them if they are there.

• 30:44Sean Carroll?

  Do you have any credence that the dark matter might be tiny black holes?

• 30:51Speaker 03

  That's a tough question, because, so I was raised in high energy physics. I quickly moved to gravitational physics, gravitational science, and I realized that maybe just as usual, that dark matter is kind of a world on its own.

• 31:08Sean Carroll?

  Oh, yeah.

• 31:09Speaker 03

  You know, everything is possible, anything is possible, because the only measurement, if you wish, of dark matter has been with gravity, has been with the way things move via the gravitational interaction. And I think some of us try to hold on to everything we've known, traditional matter, and that means baryonic matter and black holes, as an explanation for dark matter. But as years go by, all or many of the possibilities have been ruled out. So most of the black hole range that could explain dark matter has been ruled

• 31:51Speaker 03

  out by micro lensing. So if they were under the form of black holes, once in a while, micro black holes, one of these black holes would pass in front of a star and it would lens the light from that star. So we would see the light from that star changing, and we haven't seen this. So that kind of rules a large fraction of parameter space. You can still hold on to that explanation. There's a tiny corner in parameter space where black holes would still be an explanation. To me, it sounds too good to be true, or it sounds a bit desperate to be true.

• 32:27Sean Carroll?

  Right, right. No, this is a very good point. I want to dwell on this because scientists do think this way, and it's good to sort of let the broader public in on how we think. It could be, if I understand what you just said, that dark matter is black holes. When you propose that explanation, you had to be more specific, like you say, what mass black holes are you talking about? And then you can start ruling out different possibilities from the data. And what you're telling us is, we've ruled out most of the possibilities. There's a little sliver left, but come on, like, how unlikely would it be that the universe lives exactly where we just haven't looked yet?

• 33:05Speaker 03

  Exactly. So if, if most of dark matter came under the form of very massive black holes, these would lens the light from stars and we would see the star kind of flipping. If dark, if the black hole was just too small, so, you know, very light black holes, they would evaporate under a Hawking radiation. So they wouldn't be here today for us to see it. So, you know, as years go by, you use scientific method, you start excluding possibilities. So right now, I would say it's possible, but it's just unlikely.

• 33:40Sean Carroll?

  Okay, good.

• 33:42Sean Carroll?

  Dealing with money is just one of the most annoying things that modern life forces us to do. It won't just take care of itself, but Monarch gives you a great way to bring it under control. Monarch is a financial management app that doesn't just tell you what you've already spent. It helps set goals, understand what you can afford, and see trouble coming before it arrives. Monarch helps you view all of your finances in one place, letting you see where the money comes from and where it goes. And that can help you understand your financial situation better, whether you're focused on coordinating with a partner or just understanding what your money is doing. You can use Monarch to help with everything from splitting the bill with friends to tracking your savings for a large purchase. For me

• 34:23Sean Carroll?

  personally, it was largely a matter of peace of mind. Rather than just a vague feeling for how much was in the bank, now I really understand what my money is doing and what I might want to cut down on if I need to save up. So write your own money story with Monarch. Use code MINDSCAPE at monarch.com to get your first year of Monarch Core half off at just $50. That's 50% off your first year at monarch.com with code MINDSCAPE.

• 34:51Speaker 00

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 35:22Sean Carroll?

  And this is fascinating because you've already given us a couple of glimpses into how we do collect data on black holes. You just mentioned micro lensing, previously talked about gravitational waves, LIGO and Virgo. But there's also this thing called the Event Horizon Telescope, which is kind of sexy and interesting. Tell us about how that works.

• 35:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, so in fact, in the last, I would say, decade or so, we realized that we can, so the way telescopes, traditional telescopes, work is they gather light from distant objects. And so the more light they gather, so the larger they are, the better. So of course, ideally, we would have a huge global telescope that just gathers, you know, the most amount of light that we can. But we realized that we can replace a mega telescope with just an array of different telescopes spread throughout the globe and combine the data,

• 36:25Speaker 03

  combine what we actually combine is the electric field that each of those telescopes measures, so as to produce an equivalent super large telescope. So the Event Horizon Telescope, in essence, is something like that. It's a global array of telescopes that observes mostly two galaxies, M87 and the center of our galaxy. And the idea is to observe the central black hole. It's not the only one. There's a different instrument. It's called the Gravity Instrument, that's focused on the center of our galaxy. The working principle

• 37:05Speaker 03

  is similar, but the Event Horizon Telescope works on the radio. The Gravity Instrument works on the infrared. So oscillations in the infrared, oscillations of the electric field are just too rapid for us to collect the electric field. So they need to combine on the spot. So these guys take four telescopes and combine the observations in one go on the spot. Okay?

• 37:30Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 37:32Speaker 03

  But so, yeah, I'm getting technical, but it's important because there's been a huge progress that's due to this technological understanding of how we can combine different measurements. And so what we've been doing is actually observing matter, and by matter, I mean either stars or hot spots, hot material, close to large black holes. And they need to be large because the telescopes are good, but they still need a large angular thing on the sky. So we need large black holes. And the two largest black holes we know of are the one in the center of our galaxy, just because it's very close, and the one

• 38:14Speaker 03

  in the M87 galaxy. It's 1,000 times larger, but the galaxy is also 1,000 times farther. So roughly, the position on the sky is similar.

• 38:25Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. So when you say we need a large thing, you want the angular size of it to be large. We know that out there in the universe, there's even bigger black holes than our galaxy has, but they're further away.

• 38:33Speaker 03

  That's right. That's right. They're just further away.

• 38:36Sean Carroll?

  And I want to dig into a little bit more what exactly it is we're seeing when we do these observations. They're called the Event Horizon Telescope, but we're not really seeing the event horizon. The event horizon is not giving off any light.

• 38:50Speaker 03

  That's true. I mean, the event horizon by definition, as we kind of discussed, is impossible to see, but I still think it's a sexy name.

• 38:59Sean Carroll?

  It's a good name.

• 38:59Speaker 03

  Or it's a very good name. It should be called the Light Ring Telescope.

• 39:05Sean Carroll?

  Tell us what that is.

• 39:07Speaker 03

  So around black holes, or at least around the black holes that we think that gravity produces, there's a region where if you send a laser beam, okay, if you shine a laser beam very close to the black hole in this so-called light ring, the laser beam is going to orbit in a circle around the black hole. Okay, so you can think of this as extreme light deflection. Light is always falling in the same way that the moon is falling to the earth, but it's always falling. So therefore, it's orbiting. So light can orbit

• 39:44Speaker 03

  black holes in this closer trajectory. So this light ring is actually what defines the things we can see when we look at a black hole. What this means is the following. If you take a black hole and you place a source of light behind the black hole, so you're going to, you're going to see some black hole shadow.

• 40:08Speaker 03

  The shadow of the black hole is governed by this light ring. Any photon, any light that goes within the light ring just gets trapped by the black hole. It falls into the horizon. Okay. Anything that's pointed outwards of this light ring is going to eventually come to an observer such as us. So what's in an image? I guess my point is, why should we choose a certain name or another? And what exactly is in an image? And I think there was a lot of discussion. I've been in some of the discussions of what an image even means, what the event horizon telescope and similar instruments are seeing.

• 40:48Speaker 03

  And so in the end, I do think it's a wise choice to name it the event horizon telescope. Because in the end, it is, I think, a good description of what we're after. And we're after physics close to event horizon of a black hole. Because that's where we expect new things to occur. If there's new physics, it's going to show up close to the horizon. We're trying to go as close as we can.

• 41:14Sean Carroll?

  And so is the light coming from stars behind the black hole? Or from stuff in the accretion disk? Or what is the actual light that we're seeing in the event horizon telescope?

• 41:26Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. The actual light that we're seeing comes from possibly remains of stars that were tidally disrupted and formed. What we call it an accretion disk around black holes and friction heats up the material. The material heated up gets tightened. And so that's exactly what we see. We also see in both the center of our galaxy and the galaxy M87, that there's transience. It's not a perfectly smooth, stationary, boring disk. There's flaring episodes where we see things happen, which possibly is what you'd expect. But this flaring and all this activity in the future, so this is new science for the next 10 years or so,

• 42:10Speaker 03

  are going to be used to make videos, no longer images of the center of galaxies, but videos. So it's going to be, there's amazing stuff coming, coming on. And again, the purpose is to understand what exactly is gravity doing close to black holes.

• 42:25Sean Carroll?

  I think people are a little bit spoiled by these ultra-high-precision images of black hole accretion discs, which are actually from the movie Interstellar, not from actual data. The real event horizon telescope images are kind of blurry.

• 42:41Speaker 03

  Oh, they're extremely blurry and, you know, they're reconstructed. And that means, in fact, they're reconstructed from, I would say roughly 10%. So 90% of the image is reconstructed. And it's reconstructed based on thousands of simulations that we do of matter around black holes. So there's prior knowledge that goes into these, into these images. Ideally, we would have instruments that see much, much better and that don't require prior knowledge. And I think that's where we want to go in the future.

• 43:18Sean Carroll?

  Do we think that essentially all black holes have accretion discs around them to help us see them? Or are we just looking at the ones that happen to be lit up that way?

• 43:27Speaker 03

  I think the lore is that supermassive black holes should have dead stars. Because it's easy to smash a star when it approaches the black hole. Stellar mass black holes, less so. And we have no, so we've seen 200 or 300 of these guys merging. And we have never seen a, an electromagnetic counterpart to the gravitational wave signature. So if they do have matter around them, it's really weak. And we don't have many mechanisms to produce a lot of substantial accretion disk around stellar mass black holes.

• 44:04Sean Carroll?

  So just to be clear, my impression is we have seen electromagnetic counterparts for LIGO events. But that's because there was a neutron star involved. You're saying that whenever it's just two black holes, we've seen no photons?

• 44:19Speaker 03

  We have seen no photons, yes. The only big event was in fact a neutron star binary merger.

• 44:26Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 44:26Speaker 03

  That was a beautiful event. We saw light. In fact, we used that beautiful event to understand that gravitational waves travel at basically the same speed as light. Because the interval between the arrival of a photon and of a gravitational wave was basically slow.

• 44:44Sean Carroll?

  I think that's worth digging into even more deeply. You're just emphasizing because to we theoretical physicists, of course, gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed. It would be absolutely flabbergasting if they did not. But therefore, we should test it because we like to be flabbergasted by big discoveries. So I mean, and we did. That's what, that's what goes on. We test all these big ideas. I mean, what is your, how do you think about results like this with the speed of gravity versus the speed of light?

• 45:18Speaker 03

  To be honest, I, I dislike them because there's.

• 45:25Sean Carroll?

  Good, be honest. It's, it's time to be honest.

• 45:28Speaker 03

  I, well, I think most of my career were after the unexpected. So maybe we're going to see in our lifetime something that's totally against the lore. Something that's going to say general relativity is wrong or black holes are not what we thought they were. And maybe that would be a good start. Gravitational waves are not traveling at the speed of light. So I would, I'm always expecting some news along that side of things. So I always got to be, I'm depressed, but.

• 46:00Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 46:03Speaker 03

  Divide with 15 decimal digits. Okay, good.

• 46:06Sean Carroll?

  So you don't like it in the sense that you love the experiment? You don't really like the result that we've gotten?

• 46:12Speaker 03

  I don't, I, it's a beautiful result. It's also somewhat unexpected and lucky in the sense that we got a, we measure that speed by observing gravitational waves. And 1.4 second afterwards, light from the same event. So that constraints a lot. It's also somewhat lucky. But I, it's a beautiful result. It's not exciting, is it?

• 46:34Sean Carroll?

  Not the one you wanted to hear.

• 46:34Speaker 03

  Because that's what we expected.

• 46:35Sean Carroll?

  Right, that's right. And just so the audience has a lay to land on, on the experimental side. We're still working, as far as I can tell, with LIGO and Virgo, which were the two big gravitational observatories that won the Nobel Prize for stuff 10 years ago. What, I know that everything takes very, very long. What does the future horizon look like for different kinds of gravitational wave detectors?

• 47:02Speaker 03

  So I think, first of all, gravitational wave physics, science, I think, is going to be the future because it gives us an entirely new channel. So there's a bunch of new detectors programmed. Some of them are online, like Kagura in Japan is working. In late, so around 2030, INE is going to have one detector that actually came from the US. So they should also be operating elsewhere in the globe. Europe is planning the Einstein telescope. Europe and US are about to launch LISA into space. So I think there's, and then there's new technology like atom interferometry

• 47:41Speaker 03

  that's also aiming at seeing gravitational waves, but not with, you know, light interferometry, but atoms.

• 47:49Sean Carroll?

  But, but tell us what this is. What is LISA? What is the Einstein telescope?

• 47:53Speaker 03

  So they are, if you wish, upgraded versions of LIGO. So the, the working principle of LIGO is really just to stand light beams between two mirrors. And they record the distance by seeing how the mirrors move, if they move, and if it's not noise. But the ability to see the gravitational wave clearly depends on roughly the distance between these mirrors. So LISA is going to fly into space with a length between the mirrors of the order of a million kilometers, which we should contrast with LIGO's four kilometers. So that's an increase in sensitivity. But it also gives us access to the low frequency regime.

• 48:38Speaker 03

  So LIGO is measuring events, gravitational waves that have somewhere between 20 Hz and 1 kilohertz. So the size of the detector roughly mimics the size of the source we're looking for. So LISA is going to look for supermassive things, very big things, lower frequency things. And in parallel, we're thinking about the Einstein telescope, which is really a better version of LIGO. The arms are going to be slightly longer. The technology is evolving, so that's also going to be better. And the hope is, maybe we see something we were not expecting. We're going to probe different scales. We're going to see better. Something has to give. You know, something has to come up.

• 49:22Sean Carroll?

  So Einstein telescope is here on the ground? It's an interferometer just like LIGO?

• 49:28Speaker 03

  Yes, it's here on the ground. It's not decided yet where exactly it's going to be. Germany, Italy, but that's still under discussion.

• 49:36Sean Carroll?

  Okay, very, very good. I mean, what would LISA, which is looking into different, you said, supermassive things? So like, what do you hope to measure about supermassive things?

• 49:47Speaker 03

  Well, first, we hope to see if supermassive black holes exist out there and if they're interacting. We know we've seen supermassive black holes in isolation.

• 49:57Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 49:58Speaker 03

  We want to know if galaxies merge and if we can, if we can see them. But there's a number of other things that happen at, at low frequency, or at least that we expect that happen at low frequencies. And one of them relates to the birth of the universe, right? When, when the universe forming, you might expect things to happen, non-omnipotent things that get redshifted, that get pushed to lower frequencies as the universe expands. So that's one of the things we might be able to see.

• 50:29Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 51:01Speaker 04

  But I suspect everything happens for a Reese's. Like this commercial break. Did you need 15 seconds away from music? Or 15 seconds to eat a Reese's? Perhaps it's true. Everything happens for a Reese's.

• 51:14Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, that's cool. So we do have good evidence for the existence of these supermassive black holes. But we don't have a lot of data. I mean, it's all kind of indirect, right? I mean, we see things nearby. We see the accretion disk, et cetera. The Event Horizon Telescope has helped us a bit.

• 51:31Speaker 03

  That's right. I mean, it's also based on expectations, right? You expect that as things get more massive, they go down and pile up at the center of the galaxy. So we do have ton formation mechanisms, robust ways of growing black holes and piling them at the center of galaxies. I think the question is slightly more interesting. The question is, first of all, how did these guys form and grew to be so massive? A billion solar masses? How does that happen? But also, and that's something that we do not have a good answer to. How do I take two of these supermassive black holes? And I get them close enough together that they merge and they meet gravitational waves?

• 52:16Speaker 03

  We don't have yet a very robust way of getting them across the last parsec, actually, of distance.

• 52:23Sean Carroll?

  Okay, I see. So it's, you know, there's still some mysteries out there. But these mysteries are all, even if we think general relativity is the right theory of gravity. I mean, the other fun thing to think about is could we finally possibly discover something that is not consistent with general relativity? I mean, do you have a favorite either theoretical possibility for what that could be? Or experimental possibility for how we could find that?

• 52:50Speaker 03

  I think, yeah, so I think each of us has their own favorite thing. But if you, if we think back to the beginning of our conversation, which is how, just how grotesque and special black holes are. My favorite item is can we quantify the evidence that the things we're looking at are black holes? How do we do that? The only thing we're doing is measuring how mirrors move. How can we? The intellectual, you know, challenge is enormous. How can we, from the motion of two mirrors, understand if we're looking at black holes? And how deep into the gravitational well can we probe? I think this is a fascinating issue that takes most of my time, I would say.

• 53:34Sean Carroll?

  Okay, so you're, you're kind of model independent in some way. It's not that you have a favorite alternative to general relativity. You just want to see how close can we push the data to figuring out whether GR is on the right track or not?

• 53:47Speaker 03

  That's right. Actually, I would say the opposite. I don't think there's any alternative to general relativity that's more elegant or that solves any of the problems that general relativity has, in a better way.

• 54:00Sean Carroll?

  Well, you know, again, you and I are theoretical physicists. But for the people out there on the street, I mean, they've all heard that quantum gravity is hard to do. How do we know that quantum gravity won't change the predictions of general relativity for black holes?

• 54:16Speaker 03

  That's a very interesting question. So if we had predictions from quantum gravity of what would happen? And that would tell us, you go out there, you measure this, you're going to find this. But those predictions don't exist. And I think it's also an interesting stage in physics. Somehow physics used to be, and I want to think it still is, driven by data and by observations. And so hopefully, as precision in data gathering increases, we're going to find something that's really not consistent with the paradigm. And that's when you and I need to sit down and think, how can we model this in a better way?

• 54:56Sean Carroll?

  Okay, but I mean, do we have expectations for quantum gravity? Do you, is there any hopes of seeing a hint of it in data from LIGO or LISA or Einstein or anywhere else?

• 55:09Speaker 03

  I think the serious, the most serious problem we face in gravitational physics, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, is the existence of gravitational singularities. We really don't know what to, how to work with a theory that contains singularities. Now, as we were discussing, these are hidden or seem to be hidden from us within horizons, within black holes.

• 55:33Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 55:34Speaker 03

  So I think it's a natural expectation that if there's a theory of quantum gravity that's going to change, that's going to resolve, that's going to do away with singularities. I think it's also a reasonable expectation that it's going to do something to the region close to the horizon. In fact, I think many of the hand-waving things that we've seen in the last couple of decades tell us that there are issues in doing quantum mechanics around the horizon. So it's a natural expectation to search for changes close to the horizon. Changes relative to what the theory of Einstein predicts.

• 56:11Sean Carroll?

  Good. And let's, so then let's dig like just a little bit more specifically into what the data can tell us. I mean, I remember when I was hearing colloquia about LIGO before it existed, right? You know, when they were still planning, there was these pictures that you would be shown. Okay, there's two black holes, they're spiraling in. And the claim was, we understand very well what it should look like when the black holes are spiraling together. We don't understand what it's going to look like after that. It's sort of messy and there, you know, there's angular momentum and we don't know what's going to happen. But my impression, which is as a quasi outsider here, is that it wasn't all that surprising, actually,

• 56:52Sean Carroll?

  when we collected the data, that that ring down phase is better understood than we thought it was a few decades ago.

• 57:01Speaker 03

  Totally. I think that's our, in hindsight, but again, hindsight is always 2020.

• 57:06Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 57:06Speaker 03

  But I don't think we could ever have expected anything grotesquely different from a boring relaxation state. Two black holes come together, they merge, a single horizon, a single black hole is born. And the only thing left for this guy to do is to relax to the final quiet state. And that's what we've been seeing in numerical simulations and that's what we've been seeing in observation. But I think it's also easy to discard just how revolutionary it is, the stage we're in. We are, for the first time in the history of humankind, seeing two black holes relaxing in the gravitational wave channel. I mean, it is amazing.

• 57:51Speaker 03

  They relax at the speed of light. So a black hole that's 10 kilometers wide, so the size of Copenhagen, relaxes in a fraction of a millisecond. How amazing is that, that we have technology to measure this? So, you know, I think we should tap ourselves on the shoulder at least for once.

• 58:09Sean Carroll?

  It is a funny thing, like things that we thought were completely mysterious a little while ago. We figure out the answer and then suddenly it's old hat. Like, of course, it's like that, like, let's move on.

• 58:19Speaker 03

  Yeah, and then we move on and forget how amazing it is.

• 58:22Sean Carroll?

  It is very amazing. So we, and again, I'm sort of showing my age here because I actually heard more talks about LIGO, I think, before it collected data than after. There was also the claim that we needed to really understand the templates. You know, we needed to understand the prediction ahead of time. So that when we collected data on some event, we could say, oh, yes, the mass of this black hole was this. The angular momentum was the other thing. I mean, is that still true? Is that, is that the right way of going about taking the journey from the data to the story that we tell about what happened?

• 59:01Speaker 03

  Totally. So actually, my first international school, this was back in 2001. And all the experts, these are big names, I heard them at lunch saying, you know, I think in the end, these detectors will only see earthquakes. They'll never see gravitational waves. So the, and then, you know, 15 years after, here we are and we see all of it. So, yes, totally, the way it goes. So we call it match filtering.

• 59:28Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 59:28Speaker 03

  And really, it means we match the signal, the output in the detector we have with some theoretical expectation for the signal. And that means solving Einstein equations and finding a very precise and accurate waveform, a prediction for the signal as a function of time. We have other ways of checking that there are events. It's not the only way we have to search for it. It's just the best. Banks and other companies have been using this for decades. Even just to know if it's your signature, we do match filtering as well. We compare what you write down in the paper with prior expectations because somewhere, at least back in the day, we used to have a signature somewhere in the bank of banks.

• 1:00:14Speaker 03

  So this is still the way to go. And you can imagine the unbelievable effort that it took us to have template banks of millions of waveforms. We need to have a template bank for each of the possibility because it could be that a 10 solar mass black hole is merging with a 20 solar mass black hole. But we don't know, maybe it's a 10 versus an 11 solar mass black hole. And we need to build templates, accurate templates, that describe the full history of the merger until they collide. So it's a colossal effort. And as a community, I think we've done brilliantly, yeah.

• 1:00:55Sean Carroll?

  Is that is that still sort of the future? Or like, I guess, I'm still a pencil and paper theorist. I still write down equations. Maybe I use my iPad now rather than literal paper. But you know, what do you other people just sit at the computer and write a code and make predictions. Is there still room in black hole physics for pencil and paper theory? Or have we turned it over to the computers?

• 1:01:17Speaker 03

  I don't think so. I think there's room and there's the need for people like you. I'm also on that camp, I would say. We need both sides. We need people that sit down and say, we need to run supercomputer simulations for five years until we have this bank of templates. But you know, you only get what you feed the machine.

• 1:01:39Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:01:39Speaker 03

  Then you need other people doing their job, which is to say, look, that's all fine. But I'm afraid you're only doing vacuum black holes. The universe is full of plasma. The universe is full of dark matter.

• 1:01:51Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:01:52Speaker 03

  How can you start including that? Let me tell you a few things. Okay. And so that's where you and I should come in and say, let's let's join hands. It's a larger scale effort. And now, you see, having two black holes merging, you need to specify mass, you need to specify rotation of each of these black holes. So it's still doable. We need millions of templates, but it's still doable. When you start adding dirty astrophysics, now I need an accretion disk. Now I need a dark matter halo. Suddenly, building banks of templates for this, it's not feasible.

• 1:02:25Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:02:25Speaker 03

  So the search will have to be hierarchical. We need to find a way, template based, for instance, that sees something happens. And then we take this event off the grid and we say, okay, now let's scan this for maybe there's environments here. Maybe there's some dark matter halo around the black hole.

• 1:02:43Sean Carroll?

  Well, dark matter halo around the black hole. That's an interesting idea. I should have asked this earlier, but I'm sure that many listeners are thinking like, what about dark matter? Yeah. Does does not knowing too much about the dark matter get in the way of making predictions for black holes?

• 1:02:56Speaker 03

  Well, it does get in the way. But on the other hand, you know, it's our job. So it gives us a way of of keeping things going. So the possibilities are so wide, you're right, that where exactly do we start?

• 1:03:11Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:03:12Speaker 03

  Is dark matter like normal matter, like dust, that we can somehow model and think that it's going to pile up and orbit around the black hole? Or is it something a bit different, like a field, like radiation, long wavelength radiation that hovers around the black hole? And how do we model this? There's been progress, I think, on both sides of the of these possibilities. But it is a challenge. What is dark matter? You know?

• 1:03:40Sean Carroll?

  Yeah. So it's late in the podcast, so we can be just a little bit even more technical than we've been being here now. I mean, you you mentioned sort of long wavelength waves as dark matter. I know that axions are a favorite dark matter candidate, one of my favorites. And I also know that people have put a lot of theory work into the interaction of axions and black holes. Like axions are a certain kind of elementary particle that can kind of hang around black holes and have effects on what we see. And so you know much more about this than I do. Why don't you tell us what that story is?

• 1:04:16Speaker 03

  But the story is beautiful. So we we even without the axions, when the concept of black holes was kind of understood, people also realized that if you shine light on a black hole, and if the light is sufficiently low frequency, then you shine light and it's gonna come back with a higher amplitude. You get more than you put in. Right? I mean, it's not that surprising. I can I can extract energy from a carousel. Anything that's rotating, I can use it to extract energy.

• 1:04:50Sean Carroll?

  So sorry, it's it's not magic. You're actually just getting energy out of the black hole by slowing it down.

• 1:04:56Speaker 03

  That's right. You're just, yeah, you're just slowing the black hole down. The special thing about black holes is that it's all happens in vacuum. That's, I think, the feature. But the point is, we also understood that if light had a mass, if light was like a stone, as it tries to escape the black hole, it needs eventually it falls down again.

• 1:05:17Sean Carroll?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:05:18Speaker 03

  Right? So you shine some light on a rotating black hole. This light extracts rotating energy from the black hole. It tries to escape. It tries to go wherever it wants to go. But it has a weight. So it falls back. If if light had a weight, it would fall back, it would be amplified, and so on and so forth. We call this the black hole bomb mechanism.

• 1:05:42Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:05:42Speaker 03

  And when axions came into play, when we realized, wait a minute, we can do physics with black holes and axions. Axons usually have a mass. They are light, but they have some mass. So they fall back. And we realized that what this would lead to is to the condensation of clouds of axion clouds around spinning black holes. It's a fascinating thing to think that if dark matter would come under the form of axions, there might be systems there that look like atoms, a nucleus, which is a spinning black hole, surrounded by a cloud, like the hydrogen atom, a cloud of axions. It's a fascinating thing. There's been thousands

• 1:06:24Speaker 03

  of work trying to predict the spectrum of this system. How do they look like? How much energy is in the cloud? And so on and so forth.

• 1:06:32Sean Carroll?

  And what is your, I don't know, this is an unfair question. What is the probability you think that axions exist?

• 1:06:40Speaker 03

  That's a tough question, because zero, I always take it at zero. We haven't seen anything.

• 1:06:49Sean Carroll?

  I know you're

• 1:06:50Speaker 03

  I work. So I work, I think we most do. We work because of the theoretical challenge. We think there's a non zero chance that actions exist in the mass range that's going to be giving us something interesting. And then there's the challenge of how exactly do we solve these mathematical equations? And we get a good understanding of the system. And I think that drives most of us. As we were discussing in the beginning, it turns out that the universe is very naughty. Whenever you do something in an equation, it finds a way of making it happen.

• 1:07:26Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:07:27Speaker 03

  So as I said, I start with the assumption that they don't exist. But I'm constantly surprised. Things are out there.

• 1:07:35Sean Carroll?

  That's a very good motto. Okay, so the last question, last issue I wanted to talk about is a slight change of path here. We're doing this on this particular day, this podcast, because there's something called Black Hole Week in Copenhagen that you're you're a part of. And we both know that black holes capture the popular imagination, right? I mean, they're they're things that the person on the street knows about, even if they know very little physics. And so talk about that kind of public image of black holes. You know, is it is it good? Is it bad? Are we using it? Are you happy that so many people know about black holes? Do you want more of them to know about axions? Like, what do you think about this?

• 1:08:17Speaker 03

  Well, so a week ago, I took a guest, Noah Silverman, to dinner in a restaurant nearby the Niels Bohr Institute. We sat down, we were talking about black holes. She's doing quantum field theory in in black hole spacetimes. And after five minutes, the manager of the restaurant overheard us and you do black holes? Oh, my God, I'm so interested in entanglement entropy around black holes.

• 1:08:42Sean Carroll?

  That's good.

• 1:08:43Speaker 03

  Ten minutes later, a customer on the next table got up and said, I love black holes. Can I go to the institute? Can I learn more? So so the point is, I think, we are capitalizing. Black holes still capture the imagination. I think because there's things we don't know. It's physics has to be completed. And we know black holes are a key ingredient in the story. So we're doing this, we're reaching tens of thousands of people in Copenhagen. We're just today, I got a couple of messages of people, strangers volunteering to help in this because they want to learn more about black holes. They want to see how exactly

• 1:09:27Speaker 03

  are we going to learn? What exactly do we know right now in 2026? So I think as a physics community, we're doing rather well. I think we're doing rather well, Sean. Yes.

• 1:09:38Sean Carroll?

  What exactly happens during Black Hole Week?

• 1:09:40Speaker 03

  Many things. I don't know. So there's going to be an opera.

• 1:09:44Sean Carroll?

  Okay, see, I would not have guessed that.

• 1:09:47Speaker 03

  There's going to be a scientific event called Science and Cocktails, where five experts are going to discuss the status of observations. There's going to be an immersive live performance on black holes called Your Borrowed Stardust. There's going to be a comic books exposition, things for children painting black holes with light, all sorts of things that you can imagine. It's going to happen. So it's going to be wonderful.

• 1:10:14Sean Carroll?

  What are the dates?

• 1:10:15Speaker 03

  Twenty two to twenty six, well, to twenty nine August. So the last week and a half of this month.

• 1:10:23Sean Carroll?

  Okay, I'm sorry, I'm not going to be Copenhagen for this. This sounds

• 1:10:25Speaker 03

  Oh, Sean, you have to come back. You have to come back.

• 1:10:27Sean Carroll?

  Is it every year? Do you have Black Hole Week?

• 1:10:29Speaker 03

  Every two years.

• 1:10:31Sean Carroll?

  Every two years. Okay, good. I actually Googled it. And I realized by mistake, I was reading the 2024 one, because it was it said like, the 50th anniversary of Stephen Hawking's fantastic discovery. But so was that the first Black Hole Week? Or is this?

• 1:10:45Speaker 03

  That was the first Black Hole Week.

• 1:10:47Sean Carroll?

  Okay, so now you're gonna try to do it every two years?

• 1:10:48Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:10:49Sean Carroll?

  All right.

• 1:10:50Speaker 03

  We hope you're here for the next one.

• 1:10:52Sean Carroll?

  Okay, I'll put that on the calendar, tentatively. That would be that would be good. I love Copenhagen. It's not it's not hard to love. So that's good. I'm very glad you're doing this. I'm very glad the public is excited. And Vitor Cardoso, thanks very much for being on the Mindscape Podcast.

• 1:11:05Speaker 03

  Thank you, Sean. My pleasure. My pleasure.

• 1:11:32Speaker 05

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:12:02Speaker 01

  Relax and get ready for bed with Dr. Teal's Magnesium Spray. Made from a proprietary blend of topical minerals powered by pure Epsom salt and natural Dead Sea salt, Dr. Teal's Magnesium Spray is designed to help you unwind and get in a nighttime state of mind. Dr. Teal's Magnesium Spray is wellness you can feel, and you can find it in your local bath aisle. Dr. Teal's. Yep, you needed that.

• 1:12:32Speaker 01

  What if you could get more from what you already do? When you're a Shell Fuel Rewards member, you can. When you join, you'll save $0.10 per gallon on your first fill, $0.20 per gallon on your second, $0.30 per gallon on your third, and more savings on every fill after that. Join the Shell Fuel Rewards program in the Shell app and enjoy life with more. Your nearest Shell station is closer than you think.