Thread 16741133

hOW IS this PossiBle? Scientists

Black holes be hungry.

>>16741133 (OP)
>black holes have infinite density but some are bigger than others
Lmao how come physicists keep making up theories that don’t even make mathematical sense?

>>16741163
Well one taking in more matter would look bigger than one taking in less

>>16741163
Popsci is often too lazy to make the distinction between the singularity and the event horizon and which one you consider to be "the black hole" comes down to definitions sperging.

The singularity is infinitely dense and point-like. That's where all the matter is falling into.
The event horizon is the sphere that marks the barrier where the escape velocity is greater than C if you're inside.

If you consider the event horizon to be the black hole, then black holes are not infinitely dense. The one at the center of our galaxy is about as dense as water.

>>16741185
>infinite density
nothing makes any fucking sense when you look at the bigger picture. or smaller
i think im going fucking schizo

>>16741133 (OP)
It's even crazier that the redshift dates it at 3 billion years after the big bang, meaning nobody knows wtf is going on.

>>16741185
>point-like
ring-like

>>16741222
Job doesn`t understand Gods "Bigness"

>>16741210
The center of a black hole isnt infinitely dense. The alleged process of gravitational collapse isnt instantaous, it takes time for the mass to be compressed and the more it is the stronger are the effects of relativustic time dilation. From the perspective of an external observer, the collapse never completes and stays near frozen at some small volume

I like the part where they use a name that implies the correct conclusion but insist on a point source evaluation.
It is empty. Field effects vary with the square of distance. Gravity cancels out. There is no singularity.

>>16741210
Quantum physics and general relativity are two aspects of a unified reality, but we don't know what that is.
So when we get to black holes, the physical descriptions are all going to be really bad.

>>16741185
>Popsci is often too lazy to make the distinction between the singularity and the event horizon and which one you consider to be "the black hole" comes down to definitions sperging.
>The singularity is infinitely dense and point-like. That's where all the matter is falling into.
>The event horizon is the sphere that marks the barrier where the escape velocity is greater than C if you're inside.
>If you consider the event horizon to be the black hole, then black holes are not infinitely dense. The one at the center of our galaxy is about as dense as water
interesting
are you saying I can swim in it ?
neat

>>16742102
I wouldn't recommend it.

>>16741133 (OP)
Basically the size of a black hole's event horizon (or the black hole itself if you prefer) scales in a linear fashion with its mass.
So if black hole A is twice as massive as black hole B, then it will also be twice as big.

TON 618 is estimated to be between 40 and 66 billion solar masses (the mass of our sun).
And since we've established that its size scales linearly to its mass, that's why it's so huge compared to our solar system.
As others have pointed out, these black holes are mostly empty, except for the singularity which has infinite density.

>>16742390
>So if black hole A is twice as massive as black hole B, then it will also be twice as big.
Sorry I mispoke. I oversimplified way too much. This is wrong.
The true number is that : "For each solar mass added to the black hole, the radius grows by 3km" (or 1.86 miles).

>>16741312
>From the perspective of an external observer, the collapse never completes
And it's not that we're just late to see the collapse like a lot of people seem to think cause hurr durr muh proper time, it does actually slow down infinitely.

>and stays near frozen at some small volume
Specifically just above the Schwarzschild radius. Any additional mass falling onto it later is then layered around like a shell just above the new Schwarzschild radius and similarly gets frozen in time dilation. This way the object never actually reaches the critical density, and the collapse never completes (for an external observer).

>>16742390
>these black holes are mostly empty, except for the singularity which has infinite density
what about all the information imprinted on it's even horizon

>>16741133 (OP)
the bigger question is how the fuck are galaxies drifting away from us. like okay, the heaviest object inside the galaxy drags all the stars and planets with it. and imagine the energy needed to put them to motion. but like... where are they going to?

how does one move a star, least a galaxy? or are the schizos correct and the absolute emptyness between galaxies... produces new space due to lack of gravity keeping it together? in the same unintuitive way where too much gravity fucks up time, too less of it fucks up space?

>>16742470
Thats nice to know. Is there any structure like a density gradient for the mass inside a black hole? The typical diagrams i have seen are only for "finished" black holes

>>16742396
That's odd. Why would a volume increase by a static 1 dimensional metric?

>>16742769
It sounds stupid but it's correct.
The event horizon is the threshold where the orbital velocity is equal to the speed of light. So that circumference grows directly in proportion to the mass.
The same holds true if you wanted to compare the size of orbits for planets of different masses while keeping the orbital velocities equal.

>>16742470
>similarly gets frozen in time dilation.
this i don't understand. so does an object just redshift forever? it has to hit a limit where it just disappears along the surface of the event horizon, and if so, does the information of that object get destroyed? or is it coupled with the entropy of the black hole solely around the event horizon?

>>16742913
For a person far away, an in-falling object looks like infinite redshift, meaning it slows down and fades to black. This is pretty reasonable considering basic relativity and that black holes are indeed black.
More controversially, the inverse should be true for the object itself. The outside world would appear to speed up with increasingly intense radiation until it's obliterated.
Of course with something like Ton 618 the accretion disk radiation is already more luminous than the entire Milky Way so everything gets obliterated long before reaching the event horizon.

>>16741136
it do be that way with black hoes

>>16742982
so if i cross the event horizon, i would have seen the end of the universe?

>>16743000
no, just the opposite of redshift
everything that emits light on the sky gets very bright, until you're trapped and it's completely dark

>>16743020
>>16743000
>>16742913
There's no black holes or event horizons, it's just a mathematical artefact that people have taken too much fancy to. The collapse of any such object would take infinite time for an external observer, i.e. us and the rest of the universe, and as its age, to the best of our knowledge, is not infinite, no such object can currently exist.
Even the whatever end of the universe -big rip, big crunch, or anything else - will happen in large but still finite time, so even if you play more mathematical tricks to make the collapse (or reaching the would-be horizon) take finite time for a falling observer, the end of the universe will still happen faster and take both the observer and the collapsing star out with it before the collapse has a chance to happen.

>>16742490
>what about all the information imprinted on it's even horizon
That's just an optical illusion due to time distortion, if I'm not mistaken but i'm not sure.
From an outsider perspective, an object falling into the event horizon slows down almost to a stop, but is actually moving very slowly.
The image will slowly fade and shrink over time, eventually disapearing competely.
So it's not a tangible thing, it's just an image that stays visible for a long time, because of the extreme time distortion.

>>16743177
Event horizons absolutely exist. For a sufficiently massive object there will be a boundary that represents an escape velocity greater than C. Singularities are debatable but we'll likely never know because such a thing, or whatever the math says should be such a thing, would have an event horizon larger than itself.

>>16743240
>Event horizons absolutely exist.
Mathematically that is.

>For a sufficiently massive object there will be a boundary that represents an escape velocity greater than C.
But it takes infinite time (for an outside observer i.e. us) for that object to collapse to or below that radius, so physically that means no such object can currently exist unless the age of the universe is actually infinite.

>>16743240
>Singularities are debatable
Singularity in a mathematical model of a physical process is the most clear indication that your model is not valid in that point at the very least.

>>16743258
>it takes infinite time (for an outside observer i.e. us) for that object to collapse to or below that radius
but it doesn't need to collapse to that radius approaching c. it doesn't even need to collapse. if you collect enough matter in a region it will form a black hole. if you somehow filled a sphere the size of our solar system with air, it would instantly form a black hole with that radius even though it's such low density and you did a gradual accumulation.

>>16743383
>if you collect enough matter in a region
>if you somehow filled a sphere the size of our solar system with air
I.e. if magic happens. Meanwhile any real mass that isn't already inside the black hole (via math magic) will by necessity have to go through collapse to create one and subsequently freeze itself in time dilation caused by its own mass before the collapse can happen.

>>16743420
>isn't already inside the black hole
but it is. that's the whole point. you don't have access to the portion of the event horizon prior to its formation. your reasoning is circular. you're saying you need to cross the event horizon to produce an event horizon.

>>16743430
>but it is
But it is not unless the age of universe is infinite (to our best knowledge it is not) or it happens through magic (again in real world it doesn't) because event horizon is not a physical object but an area of space with matter density so high that no naturally (i.e. without involving magic or overly vivid imagination) collapsing mass can reach in finite time due to time dilation caused by itself. There's no circular reasoning, its the same one physical process.

>>16743446
i don't understand your statement regarding collapsing mass not reaching the event horizon in finite time. according to relativity that only applies to outside observers. the object's frame of reference would cross the boundary uninterrupted, while falling towards the singularity in finite time. that whole trajectory has been defined and has to occur, otherwise you're violating special relativity and causality principles.

>>16743471
>according to relativity that only applies to outside observers
And that is the only frame of reference we need to practically consider because it is our frame of reference and we can't do anything about it (short of jumping into the black hole which we can't do in practice either for multiple reasons).

>the object's frame of reference would cross the boundary uninterrupted
It will be interrupted by the end of the universe that will destroy both the falling object and the black hole before that could happen because changing frame of reference is just a mathematical trick that doesn't change the order of events where crossing the boundary only happens after literally everything else in the universe.

>>16743646
>It will be interrupted by the end of the universe
except it's not. local speeds always obey special relativity, even when crossing the event horizon. it's a smooth continuous traversal, taking minutes, or hours, according to the infalling object's frame of reference. yes time will pass by faster for everything in the universe, but not all of it. it would have to happen before hitting the singularity. every object's proper time is limited. it takes a finite amount of time to reach the singularity, which limits how much of the universe's future you can observe and experience.

>>16741210
it makes perfect sense
you are just an ant trying to understand how a dishwasher works
every idea you come up with will be total garbage
but it still might be useful to improve your qol
give it a few million years of evolution and your ideas will be a bit better

>>16743673
>local speeds always obey special relativity
Universe is not local

>time will pass by faster for everything in the universe, but not all of it
Timelike separated events retain order in every frame of reference. If one event (the end of the universe and every object in it) takes finite time in some frame of reference and the other (gravitational collapse or falling observer reaching the boundary) takes infinite they will happen in that order in every other frame of reference even if the second event happens to take finite time there. The first one will just happen faster, and if it prevents the second from happening then it won't happen.

>it takes a finite amount of time to reach the singularity
It's just a mathematical model, even if it gives you a nice smooth curve it still has to make physical sense for it to be a valid result. Specifically in this case it stops being valid when infinite time or more has to pass in the outside universe which makes no physical sense.

>>16741133 (OP)
a Black hole significantly bigger than the Entire solar system.

keep in mind the solar system is approximately 30 trillion kilometers...

Im not smart enough to understand general relativity.

Is it true that it is purely geometric theory? That is, it only tells you what the geodesics of spacetime look like but nothing at all about energy/matter?

>>16741133 (OP)
Mi bruddas an sistahs, let me know what you tink about mi question!!!
>>16745068

If data is ‘encoded’ on the event horizon of a black hole, what happens when two black holes collide? Does the geometry of the event horizon change?

>>16741133 (OP)
I have my own theory about the universe being infinite unless proven otherwise.
It won't tell you why it is, but it at least accounts for the CMB.

I'm gonna say it, the fact that we exist at all is nothing short of a miracle.
But then would the universe exist at all without us?
It's the same analogy as the tree falling in the forest.
F this gay world.

>>16742390
>black holes are mostly empty
oh, like atoms

>>16742769
a clear indication of intelligent design

Quasi stars

>>16746801
you're a retard, and wrong. wow!

>>16741133 (OP)
because reasons

>>16742102
No, you can't swim in it. But in terms of Black Hole Theory: Presuming that the "infinite" density ring is just a pointlike shell around a finite-dense structure, then Black Holes would NOT be uniformly constructed and thus could be specific and unique objects requiring an entire new classification system. Basically, "black holes" could be anything inside, but we can't know due to the shell around it. In this way it is similar to flat earth because the shell is flat earth theory. These observations are moderately supported by Hawking Radiation's existence, and is why scientists study black holes. This was all known a while ago and is a typical recurring plot element in Star Trek.

Further study is needed in this area, and Trump cancelled most of the scientists, astronomers, computers and telescopes needed to do it so research won't happen until the later 2030s at the very least.

>>16745241
>But then would the universe exist at all without us?
there's no reason not to, just nobody there to ask the question

>>16747535
you are the universe faggot

>>16741320
>there is no singularity
>he doesn't even know about hawking-penrose
>he doesn't even know penrose won a nobel prize and was knighted by the queen of England for proving the existence of singularities using geodesic incompleteness
You're stupid.

>>16741133 (OP)
scientist niggas will make diagrams like this then go on to say "nah earth isn't *literally* at the center of the universe"

>>16741133 (OP)
Standard model cosmology is fucking retarded and the people that preach it are grifter priests not scientists.

>>16741865
Standard model isn't a unified theory you mouthbreathing moron.

It's Special Relativity and General Relativity. You can't even get the terms right.

>>16748334
>I got an award from the trust crated by the guy who got rich by producing dynamite
Not impressed at all. Way to conflate status with intelligence.

As usual, the Cult of Einstein members confuse a math proof for ACTUAL proof.