[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 103 KB, 1227x682, 1709640526596418.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16163939 No.16163939 [Reply] [Original]

How can an object of finite density turn into an object of infinite density?

>> No.16163944
File: 11 KB, 225x225, ayy pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16163944

>>16163939
It can't happen. That is just a mathematical illusion. Relativity completely disregards the one way speed of light, so it allows to change it freely when changing the frame of reference getting faster in one way and slower in the other way as necessary. That lack of consistency results in causality violations and singularities. Both can't happen when using only one frame of reference that keeps the one way speed of light constant and the same in any direction, like the microwave cosmic background.

>> No.16163989

>>16163939
V = 0

>> No.16163991

>>16163989
How can an object of certain volume turn into an object of zero volume?

>> No.16164019

Why doesn't an object that infinitely curves spacetime consume the whole universe

>> No.16164539

When there's nothing preventing from self collapse due to gravity, it happens.

>> No.16164560

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>> No.16164592

>>16164539
>it happens
Give this man a Nobel prize

>> No.16164606

>>16163939
it doesnt, both are finite for black holes

>> No.16164629

>>16163939
It can't faggot, GR math just breaks there thus infinity.

>> No.16164644

>>16164629
>GR math just breaks there
I've seen so many popsci tards spouting this yet no one actually points to an exact proof of how

>> No.16164652

>>16163939
By dropping to zero volume.

>> No.16164654

>>16163991
By being compressed infinitely.

>> No.16164657

>>16164654
But to compress something infinitely, you need infinite time

>> No.16164693

>>16164644
Because its well known fact (remember, I'm not taking about what happens at the collapse, I'm taking about relativity math) and people either don't have the knowledge or the time and will to sit down and explain it to you.

>> No.16164869

>>16163939
>an object of infinite density?
No such thing. Relativity just breaks down at that point.

>> No.16164883

>>16163939
Where do you take this value, infinity, from ? One has no insights beyond the event horizon, which has a finite diameter that is greater than 0. One can in theory keep a record of all matter that ever ended up 'inside' the event horizon. The record will always imply a finite mass that too is greater than 0. So the density is anywhere between pretty dense and infinity. Likely closer to pretty dense than infinity. But since we have no insight beyond the event horizon for all practical purpose is maybe whatever floats your boat.

>> No.16164982

>>16163939
finite can never turn into infinity. not without breaking the speed of light which is practically impossible.
next question

>> No.16165022

>>16164982
BUT IF YOU LE DIVIDE BY 0 YOU GET INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> No.16165054

>>16164644
>(1) General relativity is defined around the speed of light being a constant
>(2) Black holes are, by definition, objects massive enough to overcome the speed of light
>(3) GR math predicts infinite density
>(4) We have no understanding of how that would actually come into reality from standard objects
So either (a) GR's prediction is correct and we just lack understanding of how infinitely dense objects can form, or (b) GR, being a mathematical abstraction, breaks down when dealing with black holes and shouldn't be treated as gospel. Really it's a issue with calculus being used to describe the interactions of discrete particles; it might give a very good approximation but you can't treat the mathematical notion of a limit as itself being descriptive of nature.

>> No.16165078

>>16163939
it cant
>>16163989
then it doesnt exist so then its density is also 0
>>16164019
spacetime is not real

>> No.16165106

>>16163939
it's not really infinite is pretty much always the answer

>> No.16165145

>>16164560
hey, it's the black dicks guy

>> No.16165156

>>16165022
lol you don't understand maths either
1/0 is not infinite, it is 'undefined'.( now don't ask me to prove it since i'm not going to spoon feed you and you better shouldn't have listened to the polturds and dropped out of school)
>half knowledge is worse than no knowledge
imagine the state of the sci board. Get off this clown site and focus on your studies(if you aren't a drop out)

>> No.16165158

>>16163939
no one knows what's inside a black hole
the singularity is just a mathematical concept

>> No.16165162

>>16164693
>Because its well known fact (remember, I'm not taking about what happens at the collapse, I'm taking about relativity math) and people either don't have the knowledge or the time and will to sit down and explain it to you.
if you can't explain it than you don't know it yourself and i say it because i am a physics grad and i feel you are just dodging the question with your useless jargons like GR maths (lol). you are copy paster with zero knowledge on the subject. You need to go back to your /pol containment zone where people like hurling buzz words of zero value.

>> No.16165171
File: 24 KB, 425x320, B9840AAE-9F7F-4582-BE8B-C24C7280AF57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165171

>>16163944
>Relativity completely disregards the one way speed of light
nice larp

>> No.16165174

>>16163991
think about how atoms which are usually pretty hearty and massful, now think about how they can transition into a gas and even a plasma with enough heat, atoms have a lot of weird states they can exist in

and so anyways the universe just has another state of matter that is blackhole, where mass gets converted entirely into energy and exists in field form, its really not that crazy of a concept

>> No.16165194

>>16165174
None of those states alter the forms of the atoms, only the arrangement of them.

>> No.16165208
File: 1.93 MB, 960x540, gfn.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165208

>>16165171

>> No.16165275

>>16164693
No one's asking you to explain it to me. If you knew the proof of how exactly the math breaks, you could point wiki or some other lecture notes online on the topic.

>> No.16165313

>>16163939
At the center of a black hole is really just a clump of degenerate matter. If you could visually inspect it as something other than perfect blackness, it would not appear any special. It's just a quark star but more extreme. The ball has a definite (i.e. finite) extent and density.

>> No.16165334

>>16165174
>a basket of eggs becomes an egg of baskets

>> No.16165402

>>16165334
E=MC^2 so yes

>> No.16165408

>>16164644
It only breaks down when using the frame of reference of the object falling into the black hole. When using the frame of reference of the CMBR there are no problems at all, no singularity, no crazy stuff going on. Nothing can get inside the old event horizon, nothing can get outside the old event horizon, matter just gets spread all over and a new event horizon envelopes the new matter acquired. Is like an onion with event horizons all the way down.

>> No.16165427

>>16165408
Do you have any maths proof or link online to exactly show how it "breaks down"? Now don't give the schwarzschild metric and say it breaks down at 2GM. cus it's wrong, it's just a coordinate singularity and can be entirely removed by proper choice of coordinates eg Eddington

>> No.16165430

>>16165402
you're like a religious schizo chanting latin words that you have no idea of the meaning of.

>> No.16165432

>>16163939
The litmus test of if you should take someone's physics takes seriously are whether he believes singularities actually occur in nature or not. If he honestly believes they do, you can discard his takes.

>> No.16165434

>>16165430
>einstein said it
>i beleive it
>that settles it

>> No.16165468

>>16164869
>Relativity just breaks down at that point.
How can a physical law "break down"? Shouldn't the law account for this case as well?

>> No.16165484

>>16165468
Laws are an abstact idea. Relativity is a model which holds up at certain scales and doesn't hold up at other scales.

>> No.16165491

>>16164606
this

>> No.16165492

>>16165430
man if you don't understand energy and matter equivalence why are you trying to troll me?

>> No.16165493

>>16164644
It doesn't. GR can describe a variety of black holes consistently. Whether they're physically realistic is another matter.
itt: larpers

>> No.16165496

>>16165054
You're smoking hot gas from your ass. Black holes in GR do not have infinite density. None of your points are correct or make sense. You're just making shit up about GR based on random shit you saw on youtube or the discovery channel.

>> No.16165511

>>16165484
Doesn't that mean that it's a severely flawed model then?

>> No.16165514

>>16165511
Unless you know the answer to everything in reality all your models are going to be flawed

>> No.16165519

>>16165514
Then why not adopt a more accurate one

>> No.16165523

>>16165511
Yes it is. This is why you may sometimes hear the phrase "unified theory of physics/gravity/everything", a model that can hold up on every scale of the universe. It hasn't been accurately devised yet, which is why relativity, classical, and quantum mechanics are what we have to work with in their respective scales for the time being.

>> No.16165524
File: 1.44 MB, 292x292, 1696698687205878.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165524

>>16165519
Go ahead and do it then

>> No.16165531

>>16165524
Will the IFLS cult accept it tho

>> No.16165694

>>16163939
If you follow general relativity, it happens at an infinite time in the future, which means it never happens.

>> No.16165767

>>16163939
>How can an object of finite density turn into an object of infinite density?
it doesn't. It would "at the limit", but nature has no limits.

>> No.16165769

>>16163991
>How can an object of certain volume turn into an object of zero volume?
it doesn't

>> No.16165776

>>16165767
>>16165769
Everyone knows that it doesn't, the point is the math says it does.

>> No.16165778

>>16165694
What is Hawking radiation tho

>> No.16165782

>>16165531
Only if it holds true for things you're trying to explain

>> No.16165785

>>16165782
>only if it fits our political agenda
ftfy

>> No.16165788

>>16165778
A copout to make black holes mortal

>> No.16165790

>>16165788
But is it real

>> No.16165801

>>16165790
It's conveniently too faint to be observed, and conveniently its effects on known black holes are only expected to occur in a very, very, very long time. People talk about dark matter, but Hawking Radiation seems to be just as elusive and just as convenient in solving science's conundrums

>> No.16165804

>>16165801
But does it happen

>> No.16165806

>>16163944
>Speed
>Direction
Pseud detected

>> No.16165813

>>16165804
No. The objects we call black holes probably work in ways vastly different than we expect, and that entails loss of mass via regular means. *If* they work as we think they do, then they are immortal. No copouts, no stupid meme radiations - They simply can't lose mass.

>> No.16165818

>>16165813
Then how come they didn't consume the universe yet

>> No.16165823

>>16165818
The universe is young, eventually all that will be left is black holes. Conventional expectations say so themselves, they just ass copout fiction afterwards by projecting that those black holes will eventually die by the fictional radiation. No, instead black holes will be all that remains. Only scenario afterwards where they die is if Big Rip is true and the universe's expansion exceeds the speed of light.

>> No.16165825
File: 1.01 MB, 512x679, 1698916978066034.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165825

>>16165785
Yes, anon, things falling down is a political agenda, so is electricity and the sun shining

>> No.16165828

>>16165825
Only if my tribe gets credit for it though, otherwise it's lies

>> No.16165829
File: 1.01 MB, 320x239, ayylmao.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165829

>>16165806
LMAO, apes can't even understand why they are wrong.

>> No.16165831

>>16165801
Conveniently the electromagnetic field is also too faint to be observed, therefore it doesn't exist

>> No.16165834

>>16165823
Shouldn't the Big Bang technically have been one huge black hole though?

>> No.16165835

>>16165831
The electromagnetic field is not a deus ex machina-tier solution to a conundrum caused by introducing infinite values to the universe.

>> No.16165837

>>16165834
By all means this speculation is something that comes up even without the meme radiation. It's assumed that the universe's expansion enabled it to escape gravitational collapse

>> No.16165839

>>16165835
But the em field is continuous (like everything else) and thus infinitely divisible

>> No.16165840

>>16165837
How many times faster than light is the universe's expansion

>> No.16165858

>>16165840
>How many times faster than light is the universe's expansion
Yes.

>> No.16165859

>>16165839
It's divisible down to planck scale. Everything that is physical has a limit.
>>16165840
It's expanding far slower than the speed of light currently. At the very start its expansion was faster than light.

>> No.16165860

>>16165859
>It's expanding far slower than the speed of light currently. At the very start its expansion was faster than light.
But things can't go faster than light

>> No.16165865

>>16165860
The expansion isn't a "thing" within the universe though. For something to move faster than light, it needs to move to begin with. But nothing is moving, just space expanding.

>> No.16165866

>>16165865
How is it expanding if it isn't moving

>> No.16165867

>>16165859
>It's divisible down to planck scale
No, our math runs to the planck scale, our math is also flawed
>Everything that is physical has a limit
And yet one still had not been found

>> No.16165868

>>16165866
Like the dots on a rubber sheet when you stretch it. Nobody is moving the ink, but the dots get further apart.

>> No.16165870

>>16165868
Wrong, by stretching the sheet, I'm also moving the ink that's on it

>> No.16165885

>>16165866
You're essentially asking "how the fuck does the universe exist at all". Well, it's "of the gaps" so to speak.
>>16165867
I'm sure you'll crack the planck scale eventually, maybe you'll find the elixir of life along the way

>> No.16165888

>>16165885
No what I'm asking is why are you proposing a physical theory that doesn't represent how the universe works

>> No.16165895

>>16165888
You're expecting a *physical theory* to explain the formation and expansion of the universe itself, even though that mechanism is by definition beyond physics?

>> No.16165897

>>16165895
At what point does it start being beyond physics

>> No.16165899

>>16165897
When you start pointing at the boundaries of the physical realm and ask "how does this come to be at all"? The answer is beyond it.

>> No.16165901

>>16165899
But that's not what I'm asking, I'm asking about the stuff that happened afterwards

>> No.16165910
File: 1.78 MB, 350x255, 1714207069016006.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16165910

>>16165885
>I'm sure you'll crack the planck scale eventually
Just divide it by half