719
Black Holes (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skua@kbin.earth 20 points 2 days 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

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

I’m not saying the models are definitely wrong but usually when one of your terms goes to infinity it is a good reason to be skeptical.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days 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.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 2 days ago

In one, you mean? They get you perfectly fine answers around one

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours 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 6 points 2 days ago

At the close vicinity where they don't actually agree if it's inside or outside.

[-] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 each day faster?

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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. Not only everything but everywhere. Where you sit there was singularity during the big bang. As far as we know every single point in space was part of the initial singularity. We don't come from a single point that exploded towards empty space. Expansion is more like the surface of a balloon. Maybe it's better to think of it as stretching rather than expanding.

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.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day 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

this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
719 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16144 readers
1055 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS