Why don’t black holes lead to a hard rock? Thought play

a reply to: donhuangenaro

Good understanding of "infinite"

Gold star for you. We can demonstrate infinitesimal, we can not demonstrate infinity.

However, by proportionality, if one can demonstrate infinitesimal... The proportion of that which becomes "infinitely" smaller, versus that which does not, implies infinity of that which remains.

Now, to argue that the Universe will die of entropy before you can demonstrate full infinitesimal, or fully infinity, would be your only counter.

A fully entropic Universe has it's own implications thereof. You are arguing that there is a point that all, which matter consists of, can be spread such that it is inert across the cosmos.
If that was possible, why do we exist now? Shouldn't the cosmos remain inert?

This implies the possibility for a catalyst from outside of space-time, or that space-time can infinitely reset itself from within it's own confines.
Our concept of infinity is dwarfed by the possibility of ANYTHING existing outside of space-time. That allows for an infinite number of our "Universe" to exist beyond our perception.

Your argument does not nullify that, nor does it prove it, but your argument supports it.

EDIT: I am not mentioning some other possibilities in detail, but I will honorably mention ideas like frame adjustment, locality time loops, space-time compression loops, quantum flux, etc...

a reply to: Xeven

Pretend space is water, drop a sponge in. It fills with water. Squeeze the sponge tight from every direction. The water exits. That is how I see the center of a black hole. Really compact sponge with no more space inside. No space in there, no time in there. I suppose it could be energy or Liquid but I doubt it.

a reply to: Xeven

Xeven, I would like to talk with you about this topic, but not publicly.

As far as I know though, there is no way to approach that possibility on this forum, without a post deletion.

Sad.

Your theory works with one of my own. So I will just give you a little to bite on. Consider the relationship between light and gravity. Consider that we don't properly understand light wave-particle duality, and that light has more to do with gravity than current assumptions.

See what you come up with.

a reply to: Archivalist

You sure you're not confusing gravity with radiation? Light produces a force that can push out in all directions. That's just radiation - heat. Like the sun as a great example.

a reply to: moebius

A matter clump that takes up no space would be a singularity. Is that what you are trying to say?

What is a singularity ?

Wormholes require exotic matter, violating known physics.

Current theory states , all one would have to do would be to spin up a black hole to light speed.

If gravity is matter "falling into itself" through multi-dimensional space, then I suppose a black hole is where all of the matter in an object has essentially reached the "bottom" of itself, yet it still pulls the non-transitioned matter/energy toward it and that matter has nowhere real to go. This is the same thing that happens on a subatomic scale, and what gives things the illusion of being solid. Energy not being able to squeeze itself into the other dimensions. Like pushing two positive or two negative poles of really strong magnets together such that the magnets touch each other.

Which makes me wonder if it would be possible to destabilize a black hole enough (with some kind of subdimensional shearing force) to make it actually explode. Like pushing the above magnets apart by pushing at "right angles," rather than straight on.

You can PM on this site.

a reply to: Archivalist

a reply to: Blue Shift

Imagine the death and destruction, then! lol

I'm sure that would be one insane explosion. Just think at what a star can do and multiply that by billions or more.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Blue Shift

Imagine the death and destruction, then! lol
I'm sure that would be one insane explosion. Just think at what a star can do and multiply that by billions or more.

It might not do anything, at least to our 4-dimensional spacetime. When you force magnets together at like poles, they tend to deflect off at right angles. So maybe all the force of any "explosion" would blast into another subdimension that is at yet another right angle to the ones we're living in (if you can visualize that) and we'd never even know about it. The black hole might just vanish like a popped soap bubble. Although it might cause problems for anything we might loosely define as "living" in it.

Black holes are the energy generators of the galaxies. Without them motion stops.What goes in doesn't come out it, just gets converted to that elusive black matter. One day we will use that to transport through the Universe. Came in a dream.

Stars are what black holes look like from the other side.

originally posted by: Xeven

Space supposedly exist between all particles? Maybe not in a black hole? Space and time has been squeezed out like water from a sponge?

A rock is a crystal form of matter. A back hole (and magnetars, neutron stars...) is a quantum object. It is not matter as we know it but a quantum soup of the building blocks of matter.

We do not know what these quantum states are because we can not reproduce them in a lab (we are still figuring it out).

The idea I quoted from you is important (I think), And it the notion of “all particles”. That is why we’see’ gravity (if true, it is the force of all particles on localized regions where the group is exerting a force as well. Hehehe... a “gravity well”). We see it as total force and measure it in bassackwards way of inverse squared distance.

Maybe we are measuring it wrong!!

But these are beer thoughts after too much work!

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: St Udio

You would have the space between the innards of an atom, space between the atoms that make the molecules and space between the molecules and so forth.

As I understand it, the space within atoms are 99.9% empty and the distances more vast than the solar system if you scale it up.

The matter in a black hole is no longer a traditional atom. This is the case even in a neutron star, which was not massive enough to have collapsed into a black hole.

In a neutron star, the gravity is so strong that the elections that are normally orbiting far away from the nucleus get pulled into the nucleus. Those negatively-charged electrons get pulled into the positive protons, converting the protons into neutrons.

Thus a neutron star is basically a huge dense chuck of atomic nuclei made of nothing but neutrons, and without the empty space that makes up 99% of the volume in a traditional atom. It's all stuff; no space.

A black hole singularity would seem to be that same idea, but taken to extremes. What we call singularities are not well understood, so we don't know exactly what's going on, but it appears to be the case that the matter in a black hole singularity is no longer what we would call an atom, and whatever it is no longer has virtually any empty space.

originally posted by: Starhooker
Stars are what black holes look like from the other side.

Flat earth?

We would probably know since we rotate around the sun.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: moebius

I think the idea is to think outside the mainstream box. If you always play by the 'rules' of what science currently dictates, then you would seldom find alternative solutions to anything. Scientist themselves can't even come to a final conclusion whether black holes exist or not.

I think something as unknown as this would be open game for pretty much any idea or theory, no matter how off it sounds from your 'solid' mainstream science. He doesn't claim to be a scientist and knows little about the subject. Doesn't mean he can't theorize or speculate.
Save your rain for a rainy day

If it wasn’t for science you wouldn’t even know black holes were possible.

Karl Schwarzchild was thinking way outside the box when he postulated that relativity predicts the existence of gravitational singularities.

Things like singularities can only be accurately described using a lot of very heavy math, the kind anybody thinking they can just throw spitballs at the wall and think it means anything clearly has little grasp of.

IMHO, scolding somebody for pointing out the obvious is naive hubris.

a reply to: Archivalist
My thoughts are...light exists in both quantum and in space. Space is the wave result, particle is quantum.

a reply to: Xeven

What prevents a photon from being a "graviton"

We don't really know what black holes are. People throw around the term "singularity", but singularities are a mathematical construct. What's going on in the physical world we don't really know. They may be, as some else on here said, something like neutron star taken to the extreme. Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure. The simple explanation of that is two particles can't occupy the same space, the Pauli exclusion principle, as a result there is a pressure that resists further gravitational collapse.

One step beyond a neutron star is a quark star, purely theoretical at this point as we've never observed one, though there a couple potential candidates. The neutron degeneracy pressure is exceeded and the neutrons are broken down into their constituent parts, quarks. At that point quark degeneracy pressure, as well as electromagnetic forces, takes over and prevents further collapse. What we don't know, and likely won't until we can come up with a working theory of quantum gravity, is what happens at the next stage. We know that we end up with a black hole, but we don't know what's going on at the quantum level. A quantum theory of gravity should illuminate things and get rid of the singularities in the math.

It's also worth noting that following one theory, the Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac equations, we can already get rid of the singularities. Those equations predict that the gravitational collapse beyond a neutron star does indeed yield a quark star, albeit a quark star with an event horizon around it, in other words what we observe as a black hole.

Loop quantum gravity, one of the candidate theories for quantized gravity, predicts something similar to that, a Planck star. Following that theory, at the center of a black hole's event horizon lies a very dense, very tiny object, orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. One interesting feature of Planck stars is that they eventually bounce back out again. From the perspective of the star the bounce happens immediately after the collapse, but due to relativistic effects, time dilation, from an outside observers perspective it takes billions of years. During those billions of years the event horizon will have been shrinking due to Hawking radiation. When the expanding Planck star meets the shrinking event horizon it explodes in a burst of gamma radiation. That's interesting because it should leave a telltale signature that we should be able to detect, and may have already detected.

a reply to: Roxxo

Your post is relevant, because we should know whether your last paragraph is correct in the next 2-3 years.

Is it possible that gravity is just an inverse of hawking radiation?

Your first paragraph makes me wonder if the breakdown point of that repulsion, is what creates the "singularity" and triggers a "black hole"?

Black holes are a kind of cosmic orgasm... When one manifests, it literally ejects energy and seed into a new void in the "universe".

...I haven't been laid in a while