Comment on Black Holes

LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• Skua@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Well, what exactly is inside the event horizon is unproven because we cannot possibly look. All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though, and we know that there are things out there that behave just like our models of black holes predict. It's an incomplete understanding rather than a necessarily incorrect one. If it is something else, it'd have to be something that looks more or less exactly like a black hole to an outside observer

  source

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I would think an object of extremely high density could be difficult to distinguish from a point of infinite density, especially given the nature of the event horizon.

    source

    • Ageroth@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      All models are wrong. Some are useful

      source
  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though

    What is the entire problem, because all of the rest of the physics don’t get you coherent answers around a black hole.

    source
  • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though

    You know, except for the actual singularity

    source

    • Skua@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The comment above was about the singularity, so "the rest" clearly does not include the singularity

      I don't think "no interpretable meaning in physics" is a reasonable description, though. In classical mechanics, sure, but we've got plenty of physics that doesn't work in classical mechanics

      source

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        okay what does infinite density mean in avant-garde mechanics?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    All of the rest of the physics seems to check out

    If the whole universe comes from the singularity and you need just a tiny fraction of it in a limited space to create a black hole, why the universe even exists and even more so, it’s expanding?

    source

    • Skua@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The theories on why are a fair bit beyond my knowledge of physics, but I do know that they're not necessarily the same kind of singularity. Inside a black hole (assuming our models are correct), spacetime curvature goes towards infinity. At the big bang, there may not have even been spacetime as we see it in our current universe, or whatever causes the expansion of spacetime may have been so powerful that it caused the earliest spacetime to not curve despite all the gravity

      source
    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Different things.

      The singularity of a black hole is located in space.

      The initial singularity of the big bag happened “everywhere” the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.

      The mass of the black hole is finite. It’s very dense but it have a quantifiable amount of mass.

      For the big bang the mass was also infinite as far as we know. Everything was singularity, every “energy” in your body was part of that infinitely large singularity.

      Beyond that we don’t know much about both, there are barriers which prevent direct observation of both.

      The expansion of the universe is a completely different matter, as it’s not only expanding, it’s expanding faster that out gravitational models predict, like the universe is not only “ignoring” black holes, it’s expanding despite all observable matter, and all untraceable matter (dark matter), and it’s expanding faster and faster driven by an unknown phenomenon we call “dark energy” for giving it a name, because we have remotely not idea of what’s going on.

      source
• jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  There are no naked singularities

  source