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.
Comment on Black Holes
Skua@kbin.earth 4 days agoWell, 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
marcos@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Skua@kbin.earth 4 days ago
In one, you mean? They get you perfectly fine answers around one
Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
There’s lot’s of issues with current physics, mostly in cosmology. String Theory was partly invented to describe the interior of a black hole. The characteristics of the Higgs field are still unknown. Gravity is still not unified with the other forces, despite appearing to couple with everything. Our current best models for the formation of the universe predict huge amounts of invisible matter, and we have no idea what that could be, from new particles to microscopic black holes formed in the first nanoseconds of the universe, to reinterpretations of relativity. Those same models also predict that out universe is dominated by strange energy inherent to space itself, which has no basis in the Standard Model at all. I wouldn’t call these perfectly fine answers.
And even if the nature of the interior of a black hole what the only issue, the final part of physics we haven’t explained, I would say we’ve thought that before. About a century ago, the scientific community though they had mostly solved physics. The last big question was why ultraviolet light didn’t extend out to infinite energy as predicted. Then photons happened and we discovered quantum physics.
marcos@lemmy.world 4 days ago
At the close vicinity where they don’t actually agree if it’s inside or outside.
jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though
You know, except for the actual singularity
Skua@kbin.earth 3 days 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
jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
okay what does infinite density mean in avant-garde mechanics?
Skua@kbin.earth 3 days ago
Non-classical mechanics includes things like quantum physics and (depending on who you ask) special relativity. They feel extremely counterintuitive but they provide pretty reliable explanations for how things work. That infinite density doesn't make sense in our regular understanding of the world doesn't necessarily mean it's not a useful model. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, of course, but the fact that it seems weird isn't really important. It might just be that physics inside a black hole permit for something that we can best describe as infinitely dense
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 4 days 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?
Skua@kbin.earth 3 days 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
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days 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.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 days 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.
Ageroth@reddthat.com 4 days ago
All models are wrong. Some are useful