/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11809510
>AND avoids having a singularity form at all, arguing that the heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents matter from collapsing to a single point
If there's not a singularity then what's there? what is the state of the matter inside at the center of the black hole? some kind of soup of bosons?

> A star that collapses gravitationally can reach a further stage of its life, where quantum-gravitational pressure counteracts weight. The duration of this stage is very short in the star proper time, yielding a bounce, but extremely long seen from the outside, because of the huge gravitational time dilation. Since the onset of quantum-gravitational effects is governed by energy density, not size, the star can be much larger than planckian in this phase. The object emerging at the end of the Hawking evaporation of a black hole can then be larger than planckian by a factor (m/mP)n, where m is the mass fallen into the hole, mP is the Planck mass, and n is positive. We consider arguments for n=1/3 and for n=1. There is no causality violation or faster-than-light propagation. The existence of these objects alleviates the black-hole information paradox. More interestingly, these objects could have astrophysical and cosmological interest: they produce a detectable signal, of quantum gravitational origin, around the 10−14cm wavelength.

Not sure how likely this may be (I kind of suspect unlikely but idk), but let's say this signal is hypothetically detected and this phenomenon is later somehow totally confirmed.

Since this would be a bizarre finding if true, in my opinion, I think it might be worth considering bizarre theories. What are the odds that, from some outside observer's reference frame, there could be some epoch where this planck or near-planck star generates an accretion disk or Hawking radiation-like excretion or some other fluctuation or energy process or whatever, which, from some observer's perspective of dramatically warped and stretched spacetime, itself looks a lot like the universe we live in, with some kind of threshold at or near the planck size where an observer could see something like a big bang and inflation?

This is probably a total crackpot/midwit theory even assuming this thing were true, though, right? I don't know anything about physics.

>Seen from outside the star's Schwartzschild radius, the rebound from a Planck star takes approximately fourteen billion years, such that even primordial black holes are only now starting to rebound from an outside perspective.

14 billion years? Is that just a coincidence

Could a supermassive black hole possibly become a planck star and then a white hole big enough to create a new universe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassive_White_Hole

>According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular black hole. [...] the collapsing matter on the other side of the event horizon reaches an enormous but finite density and rebounds, forming a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge. The other side of the bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe. For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe appears as the only white hole. Accordingly, the observable universe is the Einstein–Rosen interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe. The Big Bang was a nonsingular Big Bounce at which the observable universe had a finite, minimum scale factor.

>>11810204
Likely to be some further mechanism that stops matter collapsing further, related to heisenberg uncertainty principle. What kind of exotic matter this might be is unknown yet. However it would likely be very unstable and rebound immediately

Neutron star is degenerate matter held up by neutron degeneracy pressure as given by the pauli exclusion principle

White dwarfs are held up by electron degeneracy pressure

To me it makes sense that nature would not allow a singularity to form, especially given that it is impossible to know with total accuracy the location without then affecting momentum (perhaps heisenberg directly causes this explosion when matter is compressed to the planckian realm) especially as any smaller than this would mean the amount of information contained within would then be approaching infinite density)

>>11809510
Stop with this silly schizo "black hole" garbage. And yes the belief in "black holes" is truly schizo.

"Black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories (let's just pretend they're correct), yet in the institutionalized "settled science" dogma, they simultaneously believe in Relativity. And "black holes" (as defined by the "black hole" believers themselves) can't exist in a Big Bang Universe, yet they simultaneously believe in the Big Bang. And by the official "black hole" """science""" there can't be /multiple/ "black holes" in the same universe simultaneously, yet they believe there are. It's 100% schizo and idiotic.

Institutionalized "settled science" followers are basically religious - they ignore any science and facts which contradicts their belief system.

To everyone who wish to learn and educate themselves, here's an excellent scientific paper describing the problems and contradictions with "black holes" and Relativity: https://files.catbox.moe/b3aur6.pdf

And here are great educational videos for those who don't want to read (all the following is based on /real science/ and observations of reality, as opposed to the "settled science" dogma):

https://youtu.be/kI14fpM3ouU

https://youtu.be/Iz8RRN8rY00

https://youtu.be/yc9PB_4F-OU

https://youtu.be/J4NffTr_GMk

https://youtu.be/Dk2-lH9ewuA

https://youtu.be/ev10ywLFq6E

https://youtu.be/I8y3VrrVEpI

https://youtu.be/Dz2A4qXJQjc

https://youtu.be/-FdWTH08u30

https://youtu.be/Q185InpONK4

https://youtu.be/CHZ5O0jTH8A

https://youtu.be/nLC4MA6_Oq0

https://youtu.be/GfyNOEMjzI4

https://youtu.be/lmROfjgViLE

https://youtu.be/TiKYvUtpJXA

https://youtu.be/MvNCWMD6so4

https://youtu.be/TdYrgJrBFr0

https://youtu.be/-03lh_tHMJ0

https://youtu.be/FIgmsQOKnmk

https://youtu.be/ot-9R2GZxp8

https://youtu.be/p8lKQMEYYLw

https://youtu.be/_c9M33FLH40

https://youtu.be/SeIHTCdOGWs

https://youtu.be/4IdMz8PkGZM

https://youtu.be/kz-Bwi5xTTs

https://youtu.be/xUC_a-IMmGs

https://youtu.be/hC_KkLvG22A

>>11810611
>Neutron star

> The Invention of the Neutron Star
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiPmoFmBnN8

>"Neutron Star" Refutes Its Own Existence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni55CIb0ex4

> Impossible "Neutron Star" Shatters Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZFq0p3O8k

> Another "Impossible" Neutron Star
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xMhbEEoRys

> "Impossible" Pulsar Breaks the Rules
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrW_xcHUUmU

> Impossible Quasars Shatter Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJigJCwD9dQ

> Supernova & Neutron Star Theory Exploding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsDAGgGu--E

> Strobe Star or Neutron Star?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjAWi1NYjzE

>>11809510
How does it avoid the firewall paradox? I just took a few minute look at the paper and it looks like it is talking about replacing the singularity within the event horizon with something extended with finite Planck energy density. It still looks like a usual black hole outside the event horizon

>>11812808
Yeah I'm going to go further and say I really think this idea has nothing to do with the firewall paradox. That paper is not cited and I don't see any discussion that sounds like it might apply

>>11810204
Wouldn't there not being a singularity be sort of a middle finger to the big bang that assumed matter was in a much smaller, denser state?

>>11813425
No. It's would still much much denser than anything we observe. The order of magnitude of the Planck density is 10^97 kg per m^3. The mass of the visible universe is around 10^53 kg. So this whole "Planck star" idea isn't terribly interesting.

>>11813525
Just to package what I said a little better, the Planck density is on the same order of magnitude as packing all the energy in the observable universe into the volume of a nucleus (which is around 10^{-15} m)

>>11813542
yeah, that's crazy dense. So I guess the heavier the material the more certain you can be of it's position

>>11812720
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>11812720
>>11812768
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

i have this odd idea in my head, that these black holes are all big bangs waiting to go off, postponed by time dilation. one day one of them will win and the universe will restart.

>>11813576
well that raises an interesting question. How much mass is needed for a "big bang" to occur

>>11813593
i would guess over 50% of the universe. this could also explain certain holes in the big bang theory if there was material hanging around separate to the exploding material

nobel prize plz

>>11813576
If you were inside one of them, from your perspective the big bang and subsequent inflation and expansion would be occurring in real time. We ARE inside a black hole.

>>11813605
im going to go away and think about this.

>>11813605
OK we dont see measurements of massive density or gravity in our observation of our locality so we must be outside of the black hole.

>>11813605
I disagree. If you were at the center of a 5 km black hole and started to drive out at 5km/hour, you would have crossed the event horizon in 1 hours. From your point of view you wouldn't even know you crossed it. (You could still see the light from the outside while you were still in it.) At that point, "we" would be able to see you fine from the outside. I'm pretty sure time dilation only works when you are going into the black hole, and it's from "our" prescriptive and not yours.

Either way, the singularity (or singularity-adjacent phenomenon) at the beginning of the universe and at the center of a black hole seem somehow intimately related. This counter-intuitive, seemingly impossible yet true extreme stretching of spacetime holds the key to our origin. Something beyond the "singularity", in spite of Hawking. Each and every time we came to the horizon of our understanding, we found something hiding just beyond it. Even though this is just a feeling, I do feel that this time will be no different.

>>11809510
>>11810244
interesting

>>11812720
Dude they must exist. There's no other plausible explanation for the orbits of stars around sagittarius a* at the centre of our galaxy, for active galactic nuclei and they've imaged one directly. 40 years ago you could have perhaps still made the argument they don't exist but there's just too much evidence for them now


>>11812808
So from what I believed this trapping horizon would not so much act like the 'hot soup of bits' firewall interpretation of a regular black hole event horizon, as no event horizon ever forms. It's just a 'regular' star frozen in time due to extreme gravitational time dilation. but they don't go into enough detail to describe its properties

>>11814322
>as no event horizon ever forms
I think you misunderstood. This Planck density "Planck star" is inside an event horizon. See Fig 1 in the paper. r=2m is the event horizon. r=r_in is the exterior of the Planck star. The firewall paradox is entirely about black holes outside the event horizon.

>>11814368
Yes but in this case I don't believe it acts as a regular black hole horizon (correct me if I'm wrong) as it is only temporarily trapping the information inside which can then be released when the internal horizon expands to meet the outer one. I believe this gets round having to accept that any hawking radiation emission must be entangled with all hawking radiation the black hole previously emitted (monogamy of entanglement) which was the basis of the firewall theory

This is much like Stephen hawking's proposal of an apparent horizon to replace the event horizon, which also didn't get much attention

>>11814564
People are always thinking of a regular black hole horizon as something that temporarily traps information and then releases it later through Hawking radiation. Their discussion about the black hole evaporation as being like a "bounce" is nothing new. People who deal with this field always talk about a black hole as being a kind of scattering process between the infalling matter and the outgoing Hawking radiation.

And I know these guys writing the paper are legitimate physicists but whenever you see an argument based on Hawking pairs you should be very skeptical. Hawking's papers on Hawking radiation are not about virtual particles. The firewall paper is not about monogamy of entanglement of virtual particles. That was a gloss that developed afterwards as a kind of "pop-sci" for other physicists that don't work with quantum fields in curved spacetime. Read the actual firewall paper, you'll see.

Personally I'm not crazy about this paper. They basically just make up a metric giving some hand waving arguments that it is sort of like what they saw working in loop quantum gravity. They keep harping on how their "Planck star" is bigger than Planck length, but it is extremely tiny and point-like, it doesn't seem fair to call it a star. When they talk about the inner horizon meeting the outer horizon, that is just another way to say that the black hole has evaporated and a miniscule remnant is left behind.

>>11816192
I see anon, thanks for explaining. I'll take a look at the firewall paper.

>>11813632
Boltzman got to probability with the kinetic law of gases. Connecting two conductive surfaces or focusing light on a lens is like a little soup can. Inside, the ideal model is two particles hitting each other, hitting the sides to produce the required enthalpy values, or not hitting anything. No matter how small you go, this always seems to happen.

Planck was asked how bright a lightbulb could be. Boltzman work with Galileo and Maxwell's calculation of the maximum discrete speed something could go before it's two different objects. From this Planck found anything needs to charge up a little bit first before emitting more energy.

Einstein said you have a start, you have an end, you have a particle. If I say changing the ticks of clocks is a thermal medium of transfer, and Brownian motion to get outside of the atom, making Boltzman soup can more like an Alka-Seltzer tablet in a bath of relativistic thermal transfer, you got a general principle of gravity.

Uncertainity means you are either throwing beach balls at a barn door in mud that takes a century to move an inch, or you threw a medicine ball into a crowd full of roller skaters, one is going to catch or get knocked back. That gives locality to everything we talked about. All this happens at one spot. Nearby neighbors are the only reason why something happens. Heat transfers not in a broadcast way, everything at once. More so in a sensitive tuning way. You try to trace it, it goes somewhere else but in a straight line.

Matter inside a black hole may be as simple as a light switch closes, a filament receives electric potential, a wall emits brightness, nothing in between. No virtual particles.

We have the Sun, a central power source. We have the Earth, where all observation grounds itself. We have medium enough already. Matter inside the black hole, and all celestial observation, is the Sun, which is just a concentration of matter here on Earth. As real as a radio station until we land on them.