Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Big Think)   Yes, there really ought to be a singularity at the center of every black hole   (bigthink.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Neutron star, Black hole, White dwarf, General relativity, Quark, Pauli exclusion principle, composite particles, Fermion  
•       •       •

948 clicks; posted to STEM » on 30 Nov 2022 at 11:50 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2022-11-30 12:59:59 PM  
4 votes:
Bugthunk link? BigNope.
 
2022-11-30 12:31:53 PM  
3 votes:
That was kind of a rough spackling job over "gravity works with GR till we get to singularities", but overall less objectionable than some of his writing...
 
2022-11-30 1:18:41 PM  
3 votes:

Lambskincoat: A white dwarf, a neutron star or even a strange quark star are all still made of fermions. The Pauli degeneracy pressure helps hold up the stellar remnant against gravitational collapse, preventing a black hole from forming.


My suspicion has been that the Pauli exclusion principle would prevent the ultimate collapse into a singularity, but the object would still be compact enough to form an event horizon.

Ethan seems to be suggesting that this doesn't apply within the event horizon because no interactions can propagate outward from the center, or even propagate anywhere but to the center, if watching all those episodes of PBS Space Time has taught me anything. So if an electron and a proton fall into the black hole, they can't form a hydrogen atom on the way down because they can't exchange force carrying particles. They can't interact. Okay.

So is he saying that the Pauli exclusion principle operates like a fundamental force? I thought it was an inherent feature of spacetime.
 
2022-11-30 12:31:56 PM  
1 vote:
Unless it's rotating, in which case that singularity turns into a goatse hole in the universe.
 
2022-11-30 12:49:05 PM  
1 vote:
Infinities are a belief system, not science.
 
2022-11-30 1:49:48 PM  
1 vote:
It's sort of like a big, weird library where you can spy on your daughter from like 50 years ago and then send her a message on a watch.  Don't get mad at me I don't make the rules.
 
2022-11-30 2:57:09 PM  
1 vote:

PartTimeBuddha: Captain Shaky: So what if figuring out why a trillion stars stick together is simply above the size/scale that astrophysics/relativity is good for predicting?

If that's the case, then the astrocats will be investigating edge cases, to discover the boundaries of the applicable regimes.

Captain Shaky: Are we certain that Einstein's understanding of gravity can make predictions that involve hundreds of billions of spread out stars without breaking down in a way similar to how it fails at small scales?

Given gravitational lensing, he still seems to be on the right track.


Thank you for answering me.

And I don't think Einstein has it wrong, his theories have made all sorts of wild, counterintuitive, and specifically weird predictions, which always turn out to be true. Clearly he was right. I just wonder if the ability to apply his theories mathematically breaks down at some upper limit in scale similar to how it breaks down when applying it to small scale predictions (which it does).

No actual Einstein hate. Astrophysics work.
 
2022-11-30 8:49:18 PM  
1 vote:

Tranquil Hegemony: Lambskincoat: A white dwarf, a neutron star or even a strange quark star are all still made of fermions. The Pauli degeneracy pressure helps hold up the stellar remnant against gravitational collapse, preventing a black hole from forming.

My suspicion has been that the Pauli exclusion principle would prevent the ultimate collapse into a singularity, but the object would still be compact enough to form an event horizon.

Ethan seems to be suggesting that this doesn't apply within the event horizon because no interactions can propagate outward from the center, or even propagate anywhere but to the center, if watching all those episodes of PBS Space Time has taught me anything. So if an electron and a proton fall into the black hole, they can't form a hydrogen atom on the way down because they can't exchange force carrying particles. They can't interact. Okay.

So is he saying that the Pauli exclusion principle operates like a fundamental force? I thought it was an inherent feature of spacetime.


There was a debate a few years ago when filmmakers were using ray tracing and math to create the (now iconic) black hole from "Interstellar." Apparently there are actually a couple of different models for how that would really work out and the one from Interstellar was chosen purely because it looked really cool. Another, more accurate model rendered the event horizon as an ill-defined region where the background is warped and stretched towards a single, distant point you can never actually see. Thus you never "see" the event horizon, and can't begin to estimate where it actually begins or ends, you just see that the entire universe seems to be rapidly expansing and moving away from you at ever increasing speed except for this one really weird region directly in front of you... And then tidal forces rip you to shreds.

I only saw the test on this once on vimeo. It was ALOT creepier than what they ended up going with, but I can see why they went with the other one with the overly-large black void. Black think "black hole" they want something BLACK, not a giant funhouse mirror with an invisible blender in the middle.

Anyway. Point is, there isn't really anything special about an "event horizon" that implies a small enough neutron star wouldn't also have one. Even if a dense object was still somewhat larger than it's Schwartzchild radius, the distortion of space would be so extreme that you STILL wouldn't really be able to see it; any visible light reflected from it would be scattered as hell and red-shifted WAY down into the radio/microwave spectrum  where there's be nothing there to "see" anyway, just a freakishly strong radio source in the middle of a what appears to a giant spherical lens that has no obvious boundary. More than a few physicists think this is probably what quasars are: massive ultra-dense objects of tens or hundreds of solar masses that, for whatever reason, didn't QUITE collapse below their event horizons but still have enough gravity to compress the entire spectrum into radio waves.
 
2022-12-01 7:03:01 AM  
1 vote:

akallen404: Tranquil Hegemony: Lambskincoat: A white dwarf, a neutron star or even a strange quark star are all still made of fermions. The Pauli degeneracy pressure helps hold up the stellar remnant against gravitational collapse, preventing a black hole from forming.

My suspicion has been that the Pauli exclusion principle would prevent the ultimate collapse into a singularity, but the object would still be compact enough to form an event horizon.

Ethan seems to be suggesting that this doesn't apply within the event horizon because no interactions can propagate outward from the center, or even propagate anywhere but to the center, if watching all those episodes of PBS Space Time has taught me anything. So if an electron and a proton fall into the black hole, they can't form a hydrogen atom on the way down because they can't exchange force carrying particles. They can't interact. Okay.

So is he saying that the Pauli exclusion principle operates like a fundamental force? I thought it was an inherent feature of spacetime.

There was a debate a few years ago when filmmakers were using ray tracing and math to create the (now iconic) black hole from "Interstellar." Apparently there are actually a couple of different models for how that would really work out and the one from Interstellar was chosen purely because it looked really cool. Another, more accurate model rendered the event horizon as an ill-defined region where the background is warped and stretched towards a single, distant point you can never actually see. Thus you never "see" the event horizon, and can't begin to estimate where it actually begins or ends, you just see that the entire universe seems to be rapidly expansing and moving away from you at ever increasing speed except for this one really weird region directly in front of you... And then tidal forces rip you to shreds.

I only saw the test on this once on vimeo. It was ALOT creepier than what they ended up going with, but I can see why they went with the other one with the overly-large black void. Black think "black hole" they want something BLACK, not a giant funhouse mirror with an invisible blender in the middle.

Anyway. Point is, there isn't really anything special about an "event horizon" that implies a small enough neutron star wouldn't also have one. Even if a dense object was still somewhat larger than it's Schwartzchild radius, the distortion of space would be so extreme that you STILL wouldn't really be able to see it; any visible light reflected from it would be scattered as hell and red-shifted WAY down into the radio/microwave spectrum  where there's be nothing there to "see" anyway, just a freakishly strong radio source in the middle of a what appears to a giant spherical lens that has no obvious boundary. More than a few physicists think this is probably what quasars are: massive ultra-dense objects of tens or hundreds of solar masses that, for whatever reason, didn't QUITE collapse below their event horizons but still have enough gravity to compress the entire spectrum into radio waves.


For the movie, you can see the "true" black hole rendering in Fig. 15c of this paper, and what they went with in Fig. 16 (removing redshift and specific intensity changes - giving Fig. 15a - and adding lens flare).

While neutron stars might share optical similarities with black holes, they do not have event horizons. And quasars are not small (10-100 solar mass) compact bodies, but accretion disks of supermassive (millions to billions solar masses) black holes. Their redshift is cosmological in nature (Hubble redshift from the expansion of the universe), not due to gravitational time dilation of the black hole itself; the accretion disk is nowhere near close enough to produce that kind of redshift.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.