/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10207520]

Daily reminder that we have literally no idea what black holes are and any attempt at explaining them is just hypothesis or conjecture.

[Anonymous No.10207545]

coolio

[Anonymous No.10207553]

>>10207520
its
a
singularity

[Anonymous No.10207662]

Look up fuzzballs. String theory explains them quite well and doesnt need any of the physics breaking bullshit that GR does.

[Anonymous No.10207665]

>>10207553
Lol no. Singularities are a toy model from the 70s. No modern black hole models have singularities. In fact, most modern theories predict the opposite...they are quite roomy inside and ever expanding

[Anonymous No.10207672]

>>10207520

T R I G G E R E D.

[Anonymous No.10207679]

>>10207520
It's gravity thingies with so much gravity that light can't escape created by something which is somehow a lot denser than OP. What don't we know?

[Anonymous No.10207729]

>>10207520
It's the inversion of space.

[Anonymous No.10208416]

Somehow reminding scientists of the scientific method and empirical data being needed to prove things prior to them being taught as fact is now controversial in 2018.

[Anonymous No.10208455]

>>10207520
s-so, they aren't imploded stars?
>10207662
>>String theory explains them quite well
String theory still hasn't f-found the graviton, how on earth can it describe black holes.

[Anonymous No.10208459]

>>10207520
Daily reminder that we have literally no idea what LITERALLY ANYTHING IS and any attempt at explaining it is just hypothesis or conjecture.

[Anonymous No.10208467]

>>10208416
Apparently so

>>10208455
We don’t know what they are. We have never observed a star imploding into a black hole. That’s just a guess but astrophysicists teach it as fact

[Anonymous No.10209040]

>>10207520

Crazy thing is with general relativity it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the center of it while matter that has passed the event horizon is still at the edge for the exact same reason.

[Anonymous No.10209081]

>>10209040
That's a coordinate effect. In you were actually falling in it would take finite time to reach the singularity. I'm talking about Schwarzschild spacetime here.

[Anonymous No.10209097]

>>10207665
Doesn't that mean the observable universe is basically the interior of a black hole?

[Anonymous No.10209220]

>>10207665
Um, you're thinking of the event horizon in particular.

[Anonymous No.10209223]

>>10208467
>We have never observed a star imploding into a black hole.
Define "observed".

[Anonymous No.10209376]

>>10209223

Fuck you Jack, two can play at that game.

Define "define "observed""

[Anonymous No.10209479]

>>10209220
No. Look up Susskind's stuff for example. The interior of a black hole is a bubble that keeps expanding at c like a mini universe.

[Anonymous No.10209481]

>>10209097
Very well could be.

[Anonymous No.10209550]

>>10209376
Describing the limits and methods implied when using the word "observed" such that we can argue over whether observations have been made based on those definitions instead of by potentially different definitions.

>>10209479
That's an interesting way of thinking about it, to be sure, but I'm not sure it's any more credible or if it's just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.10209699]

>>10209081
Black hole would evaporate long before that though

[Anonymous No.10209710]

>>10209223
>define "observed"
When somebody has seen one and poked it with a stick.

[Anonymous No.10209731]

>>10209479

The interior of a black hole is not the same as a singularity......by “quite roomy” as said previously, this roominess is the spacetime region spanned by the event horizon, not the singularity, obviously.

[Anonymous No.10210552]

is there an easy way out there for a pleb to calculate the time dilation effect on a stellar object near a black hole? like a calculator or something?

For example take a planet (if there is one) in the solar system of the star S2 who's orbiting Sgr A*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Orbiting_stars

[Anonymous No.10210648]

>>10207665
Seriously? What about spaghettification, things staying in the event horizon forever and that?

[Anonymous No.10210652]

Black holes are closed regions of spacetime

[Anonymous No.10210699]

>>10210652
They aren't closed. You can access the data inside by reading it from the event horizon, so says Hawking.

[Anonymous No.10210704]

>>10210699
> believing hawking

[Anonymous No.10210705]

>>10210704
He was certainly the leading expert on black holes.

[Anonymous No.10210709]

>>10210705
An expert on something we literally can’t observe? That’s interesting

[Anonymous No.10210710]

>>10210699
Cringe

[Anonymous No.10210713]

>>10210709
You can observe a black hole. I mean, not optically, but you can observe it.

[Anonymous No.10210731]

>>10210710
Do you realize that Chris Langan is literally a LARPer? He has never taken an IQ test. He just told someone he's a genius and they made a movie about it and that's that.

[Anonymous No.10211127]

I'm taking a class on applied differential geometry that deals with black holes.

11 people dropped it. They were mostly electrical engineering majors lol. Cable guys are so fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.10211541]

>>10207520
Whatever existence is, it's the opposite of that.
t.gut feeling

[Anonymous No.10211553]

>>10210648
Pop sci

[Anonymous No.10211677]

>>10207520
Degenerate kvark foam

[Anonymous No.10211698]

Your about 5 years late retard, suskind solved black holes a while ago. Tldr:
>Fields in neighbouring regions of space are entangled
>Breaking this entanglement increases the distance between the 2 points in space, meaning entanglement 'holds space together' in a way
>black holes are regions where this entanglement is so fucked that space keeps expanding so fast that you can't get back out
>wormholes exist, but only connect multiple black holes to the same space, you can't go into one and come out the other, but two people can jump into different black holes and meet in the middle of the black holes are entangled
He has a good 1h lecture about the topic on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.10211710]

absolute brainlet input:
i heard from my pseudointellectual brother who’s way too into this shit that the “fabric” of spacetime can be stretched and distorted virtually infinitely, and anything in a region of spacetime that’s being distorted will be just as distorted as the region of spacetime it’s residing in; if you drew a stick figure on a rubber band and stretched the rubber band, the stick figure isnt torn apart or anything, and if you released the tension the stick figure would go back exactly the way it was before the rubber band it was drawn on was stretched.
if this relationship between the rubber band and the stick figure is even remotely similar to the relationship between spacetime and matter within it (im sure it isnt, i hope one of you autists will smugly and vitriolically correct me so i can umderstand) then it seems to me that falling into a black hole would just seem like falling into any other planet or star, youd just be falling for a nearly infinite amount of time (or until the tidal forces concuss you to death) and the light from surrounding stars or whatever would just distort and eventually fade into nothing
if you were immortal you might eventually land on a big dense rock at a terminal velocity of infinity at some point but im no good with infinities im kind of a brainlet (as you can see by what ive typed thus far)
dont worry ill never post again after this

[Anonymous No.10212056]

>>10207662
Isn’t string theory still not proven

[Anonymous No.10212066]

>>10207520
I fucking hate this picture.

[Anonymous No.10212241]

>>10207729
You can't invert space without inverting time. This would solve the nonexistence of white holes, as they are merely a inversely-parameterized blackhole.

[Anonymous No.10212490]

>>10211698

So what does this mean overall?

Space-time is just one ball of quantum entangled mass that is tearing apart?

[Anonymous No.10212517]

>>10212490
It's still too early, but I like to think of it as there is no separate or empty space, space is just how we organise things where things which are nearer to each other are more entangled, which would mean space and gravity are emerging properties of quantum fields. You could also interpret it in a way that's close to loop quantum gravity, but where the spin foam is constructed by entanglement.

[Anonymous No.10212519]

>>10211710
that's all correct.

if only this was the average brainlet here.

you're welcome to post any time

[Anonymous No.10212530]

>>10212517

Is gravity just some sort of quantum attraction?

[Anonymous No.10212550]

>>10207520
>Daily reminder that I have literally no idea what black holes are and any attempt at explaining them to me is just hopeless or counterproductive.
IFTFY

[Anonymous No.10212554]

>>10212550
So what are black holes anon? You seem like an expert

[Anonymous No.10212680]

>>10212530
The connection is very loose atm, and I don't think there are any quantitif results yet except some order of magnitude ones, but it seems like gravity is a force thats the result of the continuous growth of complexity of quantum systems. This is almost like an entropic force in classical mechanics, but in qm the complexity of a system continuos to grow exponentially long after the entropy reaches a maximum, due to entanglement inside the system.

[Anonymous No.10212714]

>>10212241
this imnage needs to be updated to reflect er = epr

[Anonymous No.10212765]

>>10212680
The continuously growing complexity causes space to continuously expand. Gravity would be the result of local regions of space where the complexity is lowered by some ordered change to the entanglement of the space, which would take energy thus we get energy or matter causing gravity like in GR.

[Anonymous No.10213453]

>>10209731
So, uh. Hypothetically, would you observe everything around you redshift for a while? For a really long while.

[Anonymous No.10213490]

>>10207520
lol

[Anonymous No.10213712]

I know what they are.

[Anonymous No.10213914]

Can one of you sci-anons explain to us how gravity can be thought of from a time-first perspective?