How accurate is this video?

well, it throws out big concepts in a highly oversimplified way. so.. not very accurate. but it was pretty good in that it at least gets people interested in the ideas to begin with.

All the concepts it puts out are intuitively correct.

The much more important thing is that they fucked up saying squirrel because one of the makers must be German

>>9128192
>it will take 10^54 years for a black hole with a mass of our sun (2*10^30 kg) to lose 0,0000001% of its mass (10^23 kg)
>10^-31 kg a year

stopped watching here. there's no way the numbers of these magnitudes are experimentally verified.

a black hole the size of our sun would have a radius of 3 kilometers according to wikipedia on Schwarzschild radius

let's observe that for a year

10^-31 kg is 9*10^-15 Joules according to E = mc^2

wavelength of Hawking radiation is about 16-20 times the Schwarzchild radius (the 3km) according to wikipedia on Hawking radiation

a photon with that wavelength would carry 4,14*10^-30 Joules of energy according to E=hc/wavelength

so the black hole releases about 2,17 * 10^15 said photons a year

nearest black hole is 2,6 * 10^16 km away according to wikipedia on list of nearest blackholes

let's say we observe that and by trigonometry we can get a 3.306*10^-7 degree look on it
assuming all the emitted photons are spread evenly along all degrees,
we can get 2 millions photons from that black hole a year

no wait that actually sounds possible

guess I was wrong

>>9128192
Well the video is definitely wrong about the
>Information is indestructible

In theory, maybe. But there is no observer that can access all information and especially not changing the said information.

When he says that you could burn a piece of paper, collect the data from every particle in that smoke, and reconstruct that paper, he is wrong. Observer couldn't collect all the information on every single particle as some information in complementary pairs of which you can only know one at the expense of not knowing the other.

>>9128192
Eh, this is definitely one of their more pseudoscience videos. It's all technically correct, but based on some seriously theoretical concepts. I mean, we barely understand how black holes even work, so drawing so many conclusions on how we think it might work is kinda silly.

>>9128192
Oh look, yet another thread about blackholes that will end with the same results. Nobody knows you twat.

Kurzgesagt is good for entertainment, not education.

>>9128192
kurzgesagt is a starting point. it doesnt need to have literally all the information, just enough to get people interested so they go research it themselves
after all it is called "Kurzgesagt - In A Nutshell", not "Kurzgesagt - In Excrutiating Detail"

>>9128323
>a black hole the size of our sun would have a 3km Schwarzschild radius
They didn't say a black hole with the mass of our sun. So it would litteraly be as big as the sun. But then again I'm a brainlet so I'm probably wrong.