Watch any pop sci doco about astronomy

>Watch any pop sci doco about astronomy
>They get to black holes
>The narrator stars to spew a bunch of mumbojumbo about how "physics breaks down" inside black holes
>Says bullshit like there could be miniature universes inside black holes, or wormholes to other dimensions

Where did this crap come from? A black hole is very obviously just a lot of matter that has collapsed on itself. The inside of a black hole is just some really warped space and a singularity. There's very likely to be no leprechauns in them. Just compressed space

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)
youtube.com/watch?v=B2ksDczJOAs
astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You can say anything you want about something mysterious and get a shitload of views.

People love magic, people really love it when they can 'explain' their magic and make themselves seem 'intelligent'.

Popper. Anything that could be proven wrong is now science until proven wrong.

An ER bridge is a wormhole made by gluing two black holes together.

>a lot of matter

>FTL travel

You can't exit an ER bridge.

You can if you're a Hawking radiation. :^)

>The narrator stars to spew a bunch of mumbojumbo about how "physics breaks down"
Except that's the case, brainlet. How the fuck do you even begin to account for infinite density and gravity, let alone how/when we go from TR to QM?

I believe at least some of it comes from Penrose Diagrams that feature event horizons. People often extend them to claim that a black hole becomes a bridge to a "parallel universe" at the moment of it's creation. It's just a quirk of mathmetics, though. The same diagrams claim that white holes exist. If white holes existed, they would be very easy to spot. The fact that we've found black holes - which are proverbival needles in haystacks - yet not white holes - which would be brighter than anything- is fairly damming proof that it's all just imaginary.

Our guy Eisenstein got it right several decades ago.This is all a black hole is, spatially speaking. It's just a very dense object that gives space time a hard pinch. There's nothing magical about it. Inside one, there's likely just of curved space and a singularity.

white holes must exist, the light just doesn't reach us

They over-dramatize it.
What they _mean_ is that the equations of General Relativity break down. You get singularities. I am using that word in the sense that mathematicians do; regions where no values can be computed and no predictions can be made. It's like asking about a line tangent to the corner of a rectangle. The slope is discontinuous there.

There are (very likely) no leprechauns in there, nor a gateway to Hell (as a particularly bad movie posited.)

Incidentally, "compressed space" may not be a good way of putting it. Black holes are always described (rigorously) by their circumferences, never their radii. The radius might be infinite. Think of those rubber sheet diagrams where a point is pressed down to form a funnel. The rubber is stretched indefinitely "out of the plane" and radial lines drawn on the surface get longer and longer and longer.


Not two black holes. By definition, event horizons are one-way. A tunnel you can enter but never leave (save possibly as thermalized hawking radiation) does not strike me as an efficient way to get from "here" to "there".
Wormholes _are_ valid solutions to Einstein's equations, but the ends aren't black holes. That's another pop-sci simplification.

>just a large pinch lmao
>black holes are so simple dude
guys please, we have very little understanding of black hole physics yet
like this problem:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics)
or what happens to the stuff in the black hole accretion disk when it evaporates

I suggest watching a Susskind talk about those issues:
youtube.com/watch?v=B2ksDczJOAs

That is, unless pic related is true. Although I'd imagine that if black holes could funnel matter somewhere else like this suggests, then the black hole would loss mass nearly infinitely fast and dissolve as quickly as it formed. Since black holes stick around, and grow, it's safe to say that any matter that enters them isn't going anywhere.

Won't time dilation make it impossible for the matter to actually reach black hole in finite time?

>Where did this crap come from?
A lot of physics equations take density into account. Try calculating density when volume=0.

Something humans are good at is understanding things non mathematically. For instance, a rock. You can pick up a rock, and you will know that it's a rock. You don't need equations for this. Your brain is able to understand what is in your hand without any maths involved at all.

A black hole is just like that rock. We know what it is, even if physics does not. Density equals infinity when volume is zero, by the way.

>physics breaks down
its actually accurate , the physics (by which i mean the theories of physics) have never been tested in the vicinity of black holes in any way.

what i think is going to happen is we'll figure out a way to make artificial ones at some point and do experiments with them.

No, you can't. The bit that exited was on the outside, it's partner wasn't.

How do you know? Are you observing it? :^)

What video did you watch? Cuz... Your after greentext summary is basically what most of them say. I've yet to see the one that mentions leprechauns.

Physics still work, just not as we know them, the discipline we've invented called physics breaks down - but the universe keeps right on going as usual - just, more strangely than usual from our perspective, with time and space flipping on their heads in shit. This breaks our tiny little minds - but the universe doesn't care about how we think physics are supposed to work.

And it's our physics that predict the possibility of wormholes, but, so far as we can tell, the universe has yet to display giving a shit. Then again, we had initially assumed black holes were a side effect of the math, figuring something most prevent such unthinkable things where all our work would mean nothing, until we started spotting all these super massive event horizons that nothing else could explain, and eventually realized they are a good portion of make galaxies work.

I don't have to observe it to know how the theory is supposed to work - if it's escaping the event horizon, it ain't Hawking Radiation, but some other crazy shit we've not yet come up with.

Well, it's in superposition, so if you observe it, I cannot pass through the event horizon, but if you don't, I do.

Dude haven't you seen interstellar lmao

That's not what "observe" means in that context - it means to interact, not "see". From my perspective, you never enter the event horizon, and just slowly red-shift into invisibility, but from your perspective, you go in just fine, whether I'm looking or not.

Then, if you're looking back at me, and don't blink, you get to watch the entire universe die of heat death, as time and space swap places and now the singularity is no longer a location, but a time in your distant future that you will never reach, while anything closer to the event horizon than you is effectively in your past, and, should you have something to allow you to move, depending on which way you go, light from the past or future may come to you, creating the seeming effect that you can move through time, while this act accelerates you towards your final future, where you'll be reduced to a series of particles in a line, each moving away from the other at faster than the speed of light as space moves faster and faster towards the singularity that is always ahead of it, until each of your particles is effectively in their own observable universe. ...Though you were probably ripped to shreds before you got anywhere near the horizon, reduced to particle spaghetti before you went in, and less than that, if cosmic censorship is true.

So you can see why sometimes folks wax a little poetic about these things.

Whoa, what a way to go.

>Something humans are good at is understanding things non mathematically. For instance, a rock. You can pick up a rock, and you will know that it's a rock. You don't need equations for this. Your brain is able to understand what is in your hand without any maths involved at all.
>A black hole is just like that rock.
What the fuck are you talking about? We have no concept of black holes outside of physics. There is nothing you have interacted or ever will interact with that shares any property in common with a black hole.

Yes. Viewed from "flat space" objects take infinite time to reach the event horizon.
A "white hole" would just be a time-reversed black hole. So it would take infinite time for anything to emerge from the hole -- or for the hole itself to pop into being.
That's why hardly any physicists believe they can actually exist. Read Kip Thorne's book on why "Interstellar" is BS. (He was technical advisor on the film and told Nolan so, but was ignored.)

>There is nothing you have interacted or ever will interact with that shares any property in common with a black hole.
You are just begging for a "your mom" joke, aren't you?

Wow check that webm! Real actual footage of a black hole they captured when they went flying into space with a film crew!

You can tell it's real because l@@k at the gravitational lensing!

Think it's Space Engine - which is actually a really nifty program.

You do realize that %99.999 of every astronomical "photo" you see is an artist's rendition? Fuzzy blips, radio telescope data, spectrocity charts, and gravimetric ligo charts don't look very interesting.

>>Watch any pop sci doco
Why?

Popular science is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

>compressed space
space is not a thing... it's where things are. Space is nothing, and "nothing" can't be compressed or anything like that

Think Event Horizons due to attempt to give us a good image of Sagittarius A's event horizon via VLBI, which should look like, something.

Wow, are you ever going to have your mind broken when you realize how your cell phone's map function works.

Pls elaborate.

Not him, but GPS works, because we do relativity calculations between the network of satellites and ground stations to compensate for the time dilation that occurs from their relative speed distance and being in less curved space, higher in the gravity well. Otherwise, by the end of the week, your smartphone would think you were on the other end of the nation. It uses the same general relativity formula that initially predicted black holes, and has to be accurate, in this case, to sixteen digits.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Now tell him about vacuum energy and how space isn't actually nothing.

Giving him the relativity mindfuck and the quantum mind fuck, both in the same day, maybe a bit much... Although I suppose black holes do involve both mind fucks.

Wow that's by far the most practical application of relativity I've heard.

>black holes are so simple dude
Classical black holes are very simple mah dude. In any GR course it's the first solution of the EFE you will study.

Comes up more often than you'd think - basically whenever there's two atomic clocks timing fractions of a picosecond shit more than a few miles apart, or even at different altitudes, and of course, anytime we communicate with anything outside the atmosphere in a fashion that needs to be even marginally well timed.

I'm just glad the universe is uniform enough to allow the formulas to work so smoothly. Given how wonky it gets at quantum levels, it's kind of amazing how much simpler things get the further you go out... Well, until you go too far out. Not that the Earth's gravity is perfectly uniform, but it's close enough (and even in those rare instances where it isn't, well, that's why we made gravity maps like pic related).

This has to take the prize for the most retarded unscientific comment ever written on this website, fuuuuck me.

why don't you listen to the talk instead of thinking your freshman course told you everything you'll ever know about physics

>complains about people spouting bullshit
>starts to spout bullshit himself
Black holes don't exist.

The map is not the territory, retard. The fact that you can model some phenomenon a certain way doesn't necessarily imply a one-to-one correspondence between what goes on in your model and what goes on in reality.

One of the better explanations in this thread

>A black hole is very obviously just a lot of matter that has collapsed on itself.
define "collapsed"

I can see what you're getting at, but this intuition comes from thousands of years of looking at rocks. Humans haven't been observing black holes for long enough to have any sort of intuition about them, and are also unable to compare them very well to much of what we see.

No, he's wrong about never reaching the singularity. You'd reach that very quickly. The black hole's ability to stretch space does not outmatch how fast you you fall into it through that space. The stretching and the gravity act as a double conveyor belt that gets you to the singularity in real time, real fast.

It's because of the Schwarzchild radius, our observable universe is contained inside it's own observable schwirzchild radius. I still think there is some bullshit in it.

Wrong. Viewed from flat space, we can't see something cross the event horizon because its light gets redshifted into infinity as it crosses it. When the object is almost frozen, we do have all the confirmation we need that the object has passed the event horizon. There's no need to bring time dilation into it. For the object's sake, it notices nothing. Time dilation is never felt by the object experiencing it. It would merge with the singularity in real time, from it's perspective.

Btw, the density of a black hole can be really low after all, the definition of a black it's an object which scape velocity is equal or bigger than the speed of light. The Swarchild radius analize this kinda shit.

This is just one of the solutions of Einstein's equations.

That's because black holes don't have event horizon.

Oh yeah? Awesome, please show your proof of that. I'm absolutely dying to see it.

>black holes don't have event horizon.
Lel

We haven't observed hawking radiation, full stop. The way it is stated to work involves a black hole giving energy to a virtual particle pair that spawned just outside of the event horizon and was broken up by the gravity gradient. It doesn't work any other way. So either hawking radiation isn't real, in which case all matter stays in, or it is real, and the radiation a black hole emits is really just a particle it pulled out of nothing, as opposed to something from within itself.

Any statement about black holes is vacuously true.

No, he's right, you don't reach the singularity. It's collapsing eternally, and is stretching space along with it at faster than the speed of light (cuz while matter can't do that, space can). Nothing can ever catch up with it, as, from inside the event horizon, it is effectively infinitely far in the future.

this

>The map is not the territory, retard. The fact that you can model some phenomenon a certain way doesn't necessarily imply a one-to-one correspondence between what goes on in your model and what goes on in reality.
That's very true, but when the map says there's a mountain, and you see a mountain, you kinda assume it's a mountain. In this case, everyone thought the map was wrong, until we started seeing mountains, and that includes the guy who designed part of the map.

Unless, of course, you have some other explanation for what these supermassive objects, that don't shine, and are far smaller than that amount of mass has any right to be.

I mean, I might be up for alternative explanations that nix singularities. There are a few, they just have consequences that mesh with other well established observations, or aren't tied to anything testable. But the supermassive event horizons are plainly there. If they weren't, if it wasn't possible to pack so much matter in once space that it would create such an effect, then these galaxies wouldn't be here - or at least wouldn't take the relatively calm ordered orbits they do - and thus, neither would we.

A naked singularity would be rather obvious - and probably actually more dangerous.

It was fucking joke, notice the smiley.

How would it be dangerous?

I thought that just meant you were a kid or something.

They're cold neutron stars.

>We haven't observed hawking radiation, full stop.
Well, we wouldn't expect to see it from out in the universe, as black holes large enough to spot from this far away don't even emit enough of it to power an LED bulb. The bigger the hole, the less Hawking radiation.

The disturbing bit is that we didn't observe it in CERN either.

I say disturbing, cuz if they don't evaporate, we may be in trouble - though I suppose we get clues as to that for about a century. (Albeit, cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere would caused the problem ages ago, so we're probably good.)

Those are larger with the same mass, have no mechanics to hold them together if they were any larger, and ARE THE BRIGHTEST STARS AROUND cuz the only thing keeping them from collapsing is neutron (and possibly quark) degeneracy pressure, being macro scale quantum objects. There's just no way for a neutron star to be dark or have that much mass at that size.

...and you certainly can't have a neutron star with a radius several hundred times the size of our solar system. Balls of neutronium can't be much larger, than our moon. Eventually the neutrons will be under so much pressure that they'll be so energetic as to start combining with oppositely charge neutrons, become bosons, and no longer have the Pauli Exclusion Principle to prevent them from occupying the same space.

Cuz instead of having a hole in space that was tucked nicely inside an event horizon, you'd have a hole in space that was expanding into the universe.

There's theories that if black holes happen to ring together in the right order, they may temporary expose a naked singularity - it'd be gone before it was a real problem, but the brief moment it was exposed, it'd put out more gamma rays than your average quasar, frying anything in the galaxy it was in. We've yet to observe anything like that though, so we assume (or hope) it isn't actually possible.

Not that regular old quasars aren't bad enough.

I think you're wrong about it not being observed. From wikipedia:

>Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems this effect is too small to be observed directly. However, in September 2010 an experimental set-up created a laboratory "white hole event horizon" that the experimenters claimed was shown to radiate an optical analog to Hawking radiation,[27] although its status as a genuine confirmation remains in doubt.[28] Some scientists predict that Hawking radiation could be studied by analogy using sonic black holes, in which sound perturbations are analogous to light in a gravitational black hole and the flow of an approximately perfect fluid is analogous to gravity.[29][30]

Neutron stars can be black. Most, in fact, are. You're mistaking neutron stars for quasars.

Similar to how nothing would reach event horizon due to time dilation, collapsing mass doesn't develop enough density in time to create event horizon, it slows down before that due to time dilation.

What the fuck do expect? It's pop science. It's supposed to create interest in science and the natural world, maybe sow some seeds that one day grows into a tree. Did you expect the very latest theories on black holes described in the highest levels of physics and mathematics?

Hatred for pop sci on Veeky Forums is disgusting. It's perhaps one of the greatest tools to spread scientific information to the general public who would otherwise never, ever learn about it. But oooh nooo it's not university level maths boo fucking hoo.

Eh, this sounds only a bit better than trying to demonstrate the patterns galaxies take by making whirlpools in water.

I'm not doubting it happens, much, but this doesn't sound like direct observation of the phenomenon. It is something CERN should have produced, but didn't - but CERN's been doing a lot of odd things that have been John Snow'ing us for awhile.

I don't think that's right. A naked singularity is simply a black hole that spins so fast that the event horizon shrinks below the singularity doughnut. Such a thing is theoretically possible, but unstable, and would stabilize into a regular black hole in seconds. It would emit some light, but I think nothing threatening to all life in a galaxy. The supernova that created the black hole would probably emit more radiation.

Bullshit. No dead star has cooled enough to stop emitting visible light yet.

>No dead star has cooled enough to stop emitting visible light
Apart from all that have.

No, literally none have. The universe is far too young for that to have happened yet, you lying fucker.

> what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.
Out of what twisted manifestation of your own insecurities does this make sense to you? You're actually demonizing curiosity? You see a lot of incredibly stupid shit on this site due to all the neonazis, but jesus, this one stands out.

Quasars are large angry black holes with accretion discs in crack mode, often emanating more energy than the galaxy they are in (sometimes by a factor of billions), in jets often longer than most galaxies. If you treat them as single objects, they are the brightest *objects* in the universe.

Pulsars (maybe you're thinking), are neutron stars spinning off energy at ludicrous speeds, and the brightest *stars* known. They do not, however, hold even a candle to a fucking qusar. There's thousands of pulsars in our galaxy, and we're fine. One good quasar, even as far away as the Andromeda galaxy, would eventually be a threat to us - one in our own galaxy would put an end to all life in it in short order. The nearest quasar is in the center of Markarian 231, some 581 million light years away - so far that we couldn't even distinguish a pulsar in that same galaxy, even with Hubble.

There are no dark neutron stars. You can't make neutron degeneracy pressure to hold them up without emitting a whole lotta radiation.

>muh big bang
The fuck outta here.

>Quasars are large angry black holes with accretion discs in crack mode
No.

Are you trying to tell me a big bang couldn't happen inside of a black hole?

I was thinking what you thought at first, but then I considered that he may have just been saying that it's a desire that is small, instead of (morally) low. I decided not to say anything, because if the guy is too dumb to realise he is being incoherent, he is not worth talking to.

Well, there are some brown dwarfs that are pretty dim.

I suppose the ones that exploded and became black holes have *technically* stopped emitting light. Stars big enough to do that don't live very long, so there's plenty of those.

Neutrons stars just plain old don't burn out though - they are the longest lived stars in the universe, and if anything kills them, it'll be collapse, which they are all on the verge of. Pulsars slow over time, and eventually become the harder to detect regular neutron stars, but pulsars have been detected more than 10 billion years old (and that one is still rotating once every 8 seconds). Near collisions should cause them to slow sooner, if they don't simply make them collapse.

But we've already seen for ourselves what happens when two neutron stars collide - as predicted, black hole.

Stop shitposting. You're wrong, but you can't admit it because your reptilian brain is compelling you to be stubborn in the face of evidence that would make you look stupid in your social group if you accepted it. But anyone with a mammal brain can already see that you are being stupid.

>Well, there are some brown dwarfs that are pretty dim.
Yes, but brown dwarfs are technically not stars. They never managed to start fusion. They are just very large, very warm, planets, that got the "at least you tried" prize. (Though they do last near forever.)

A brown dwarf isn't a star. Neither is a black hole. No dead star that isn't a black hole is dim enough to form a black dwarf. There are only white dwarfs and neutron stars. Both are going to be emitting light for a long time yet.

This sort of sci-fi bullshit should be banned from Veeky Forums. There is no evidence that quasars are black holes with accretion disks. Now fuck off.

Nothing else we have ever theorized about could contain the mass they do, in the space they do, and do what they do.

Flat earthers should be banned from Veeky Forums.

>we've already seen for ourselves what happens when two neutron stars collide - as predicted, black hole.
Rubbish.

>Flat earthers should be banned from Veeky Forums.
I agree. As should your kind. Take this phantasmagorical crap to or some shit.

Stop shitposting.

You first.

Fuckers got a nobel prize for that observation... Where do you think the two neutron stars went?

Nowhere.

So black holes don't exist, but neutron stars can just vanish from the universe without making one... Okay then.