Never say Never?

Many times in science we hear the phrase..."Never say Never". Generally, this is a retort to someone making a statement about something which will never be accomplished, or never be discovered. Well, there's one 'Never' I can think of which I challenge science to argue...

No man, no instrument made by man, no thing, effect nor field, nor particle will ever factually report back the inner characteristics (no measurement, no direct experiment) of a black hole from below the event horizon. Many might theorize what it's like, many may characterize the properties with approximations, but no one will ever "know" for certain.

So...I'm saying "Never".

Prove me wrong! LOL!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Create a mini black hole and a mini white hole side by side and throw something in the black hole?

I didn’t come up with that in my own.

My guess is that even if something or someone were able to measure exact characteristics of a black hole, it would not matter as I would assume that no black holes are identical.

Just as with tornados or hurricanes, we know how they form but no two are going to act the exact same.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well, true, but I was referring to a much broader fundamental understanding. And that we have for things like tornadoes and hurricanes.

E=mc2

The speed of light . According to Einstein the speed of Light cannot be physically broken . It is the pinnacle of Physical speed.

And yet nothing can escape a Black Hole including Light .

Which in theory means the Black Hole is exceeding the Speed and Power of Light .

E=mc2 is not just the theory of relativity , it is the equation that proves the point between the Physical Dimension and the Non-Physical Dimension . It is the breaking point .

The human mind has to expand literally into the next Dimension before we can truly prove a Black Hole.

a reply to: Myhandle

I don't personally believe white holes exist. They're really more of a mathematical exercise. The Big Bang maybe, but beyond that, doubtful.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Indeed, it has been theorized that even to prove something fundamental like the precise location of the event horizon of a black whole would require a complete understanding of the history of the Universe since its beginnings AND a complete knowledge of the entire future of the Universe...out to its end.

So yeah, I'd say we're gonna' need to do some spring cleaning upstairs in the grey matter department to make enough room to digest all that!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don’t pretend to be smart enough to know, but there’s a game made by people smarter than me where you throw a drone thru a black hole and the same drone comes out the white hole milliseconds before it entered the black hole.
The implications are more profound than my monkey mind can comprehend. I could still be convinced that stars are white holes.

E=mc2

The speed of light . According to Einstein the speed of Light cannot be physically broken . It is the pinnacle of Physical speed.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Eric Weinstein has challenged some of Einstein's theories. Einsteins's theories have been the bedrock for modern day theoretical physicists, imagine if they were to be proven wrong or not exactly acurate? Well, it is possible and Eric Weistein has a lot of work out there to look into. Interesting topic.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Physicists for the past 50 years have been trying to prove Einstein was wrong about a whole variety of things. In fact, countless physicists have defined their entire careers by challenging Einstein...otherwise they would be irrelevant. It's the only thing which puts them on the map. They're mostly wrong. Not all, but most.

Einstein's theories have prevailed far more often than been proven wrong. My money is on Einstein.

(that last part was a joke, BTW)

a reply to: Myhandle

Well, that's a bit dated, but there was a time when a white hole was thought to be the inverse of a black hole, essentially a mirror image in reverse. And, the two were then connected via a 'worm hole'. This theory has been largely discarded today. Modern theory has white holes, in theory, as wholly separate entities...if they even exist at all (which I doubt).

The theoretical problem would be aligning the two, because in essence they are the same singularity. Plus, there would need to be a 1 for 1 relationship between white and black holes, which has not even been close to being observed. Only black holes have been proven.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think you’re saying if a white hole existed in the form proposed it would only be observed in a mirror universe which would need mirror versions of everything and ourselves?

a reply to: Myhandle

No, not really. It's just the mathematical opposite of a black hole. Doesn't really have anything to do with temporal position.

Einstein's theories have prevailed far more often than been proven wrong. My money is on Einstein.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Weinstein goes into the way current funding is predicated on "not rocking the boat" among theoretical physicists. I am just going by what I have read and watched coming from Eric, he seems to be a top player. Also, it is hard to believe that Einstein got it all right decades ago. Einstein no doubt was the leader among theoretical physicists but to think he got it all right is a bit far fetched in my opinion. Eric has said as much-I have been mildly interested in how Eric has challenged the orthodoxy in this field. I find the topic fascinating. Great topic.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

empirical statements. They ALWAYS fail. LOL, I remember telling my now 30 year old son that he needed to get his ass outside and do things with people, because nobody will ever pay you to play video games.

That one aged poorly.

But I have been assured by many experts and physics gurus that Hydrogen as a fuel will never be used. So while those statements often fail, you can take that one to the bank.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Myhandle

I don't personally believe white holes exist. They're really more of a mathematical exercise. The Big Bang maybe, but beyond that, doubtful.

I can recall that neutrinos were also just a mathematical idea in Fermi's theory of beta decay.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

For all practical purposes, time stops moving at the event horizon. I am not talking theoretical mathematical models, but what would be observable.

Any observer or instrument would just seem to stop when reaching the event horizon of a black hole. Much like a bug splattering on a windshield. Time, as we preceave it, would suddenly slow down then abruptly stop.

Too much gravity to get out but too much time slowdown to fall the rest of the way except only as energy.

If we truly understood what was the real nature of the universe at those levels, we could probably fold space and travel the galaxies without moving.

a reply to: Moon68

Notice I said "doubtful" (not 'never') for white holes. Contrast that with the "never" used in the OP (which I stand by).

Consequently, I have a lot higher degree of confidence in the existence of white holes than I do in mankind ever being able to fully quantify, qualify and fully dissect a black hole in an empirical way (the essence of the OP). Ultimately, we may understand black holes "better" than we do now based on theory and modeling as well as various other observational methods, but we will never be able to define their exact characteristics empirically.

So, why is this important? Well, from my perspective, it's a key area of physics we may never understand fully which, at least theoretically, could be the key to unlocking long distance space travel (like at the interstellar level). And, as fringe noted above, there are questions about how General Relativity appears to break down below the event horizon, particularly in the apparent notion of faster than light travel. However, my suspicion is GR doesn't actually break down, there's just something we're missing. Quantum mechanics and other areas of research may unlock some of these things, but it's the hard way around the problem. Being able to slice open a black hole and understand exactly what is going on inside of it down to the sub-atomic level would be a helluva lot faster, but that ain't gonna' happen.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

Well, yes, but also keep in mind, you're also talking about relative frames of reference (i.e. outside looking in). Time never really "stops", it's all a function of your frame of reference. This is precisely why a thorough empirical understanding of what's going on from the 'inside looking out' (so to speak) is so important.

And this, in my opinion, is one of the dangers quantum mechanics/quantum physics research. We could quite easily (in theory) accidentally stumble into something we can't fix. Black holes, on the other hand, despite all their seeming chaos and dynamics are relatively stable and persistent in our Universe. It sure would be good to understand how this can be before we get too far down the road with creating God particles and the like.

The crude analogy I use is...right now our approach is..."Let's see what happens when we do this!". That's a dangerous approach (IMO). Especially when you don't have a known backout plan. We've been fortunate so far with things like CERN's hadron super collider and other facilities, but all it's going to take is one experiment some day off in the not too distant future to create a product which could be really nasty, and really persistent...an no known way to contain or control it.

Black holes are pure science fiction. Infinite gravity and infinite density descriptions are not based in reality. The theoretical math used to describe a black hole doesn't allow for any other matter to exist in a black hole universe.
Stephen Crothers has an excellent lecture on youtube that explains this and destroys Einstein's nonsense concerning gravity and light.
These statements are my opinion, I am not an expert on anything....I seek the truth.