5 ms·
There is a misconception: Light cannot escape a black hole for gravitational reason (not to mention that gravity does not exist, it is a not a force, read up Ge
by kinai 10y ago
There is a misconception: Light cannot escape a black hole for gravitational reason (not to mention that gravity does not exist, it is a not a force, read up General Relativity). The real reason is that the space-time curvature does simply not provide a way for the light to go back. Same reason you can't go to the end of the universe if the universe would be a sphere.
Also if someone likes to talk about black holes it is good to remind people that it is not a hole...as the article mentions its a region, to be more precise it is a region in space-time that is cut off from ours. The whole issue is not just spacial but also temporal, that is usually the point when your brain gives up understanding the whole problem.
A good description would be: a black hole is the collection of events that do happen outside our space-time/universe. This also explains some of the paradoxes near the event horizon.
- spriggan3 10y agoSo basically it's impossible to know what is "inside" a black hole because it's not part of this universe ? But aren't black hole formed by stars that collapsed under their own mass ? So black holes are created from objects that belong to this universe right ? I get the idea that black holes aren't like a sink. However all that matter or light that get "trapped" into it must go somewhere, in some form .
- InclinedPlane 10y agoYep. Black holes aren't phenomena of matter, they are formed initially from matter but they are phenomena of space-time. The event horizon is basically a one way door, there's no way, no route in space-time, to cross it and return.
- ajuc 10y agoBut black holes evaporate?
- zamalek 10y agoThe curvature is the cause of the event horizon, the mass or energy is the cause of the curvature. Remove energy and you remove curvature, remove the curvature and you remove the event horizon.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- contravariant 10y agoOnly if you go beyond general relativity. Once you include quantum physics there are some strong indications that black holes must somehow evaporate (although this hasn't been observed directly), but that model is still incomplete.
- InclinedPlane 10y agoYup, and that's a problem that hasn't been fully worked out yet.
- zubspace 10y agoSo, it's an 'information' black hole, right? But matter, energy, whatever is trapped inside it with very high density and does not simply vanish right? .. Or am I completely wrong?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- x5n1 10y agoNot necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
- spriggan3 10y ago> Information is stored in a baby universe that separates from our own universe I like this idea, but then it means that there is no universe but multiverses, yet these multiverses need to be part of a greater structure or container, right ? do we have clues that strongly suggest the multiverse theory ?
- x5n1 10y agohttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/black-holes-are-a-passage-to-another-universe-says-stephen-hawking-10471397.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/black-holes-are-a-... We have many theories but little evidence of any of the theories having to do with black holes.
- Ruud-v-A 10y agoFrom a practical point of view, the baby universe theory is no different than the “information is lost” theory. Although it might be satisfying to think that information is not “really lost”, there is no way in which we -- in our universe -- would be able to tell the difference. The distinction is philosophical, not physical. There is a different theory not mentioned prominently on that page that in my opinion provides the most useful resolution: Black Hole Complementarity. In a sense it is not a satisfying resolution, because it basically states “the paradox is not a paradox”. It is very counter-intuitive, but that is a problem with intuition. The wave-particle duality of light, which is nowadays not really considered a paradox any more although it was ~110 years ago, is a good analogy. As always happens with questions like these, in the end the answer is “that is a nonsensical question to ask”.
- vocatus_gate 10y agoBlack holes have always fascinated and terrified me, don't know why. Just something mysterious about them.
- dschiptsov 10y agoIf one consider that exactly opposite is true - gravity actually do exist as a "function" of a matter, but space-time doesn't (especially a curved one) being a conditioning of our "serialized", self-centered perception, everything, it seems, falls to its places.
- petewailes 10y agoI'm pretty sure this doesn't make any sense. How are you explaining away spacetime?
- kinai 10y agoGravity is not a function of matter, and proving that curved space-time is real is trivial. So not sure where you are going with that idea...
- dschiptsov 10y agoCould you, please, give me a link for the proof of existence of time. Not some processes in the Universe, but time itself.
- Koshkin 10y agoYou can find a wealth of information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
- dschiptsov 10y agoI am afraid I don't quite understand you, my friend. Are you trying to suggest that existence of this particular page or any part of its content constitutes the proof of existence of time as an independent from an observer phenomena? May be it somehow related to Kantian view mentioned there about time as a mode of perception, being, as he said, prior to all perceptions, as a condition, but not of observable phenomena, but of sequential mode of perceptual machinery of an observer? But, as far as I know, in Russia "Kant - lokh".
- Freaky 10y ago> The real reason is that the space-time curvature does simply not provide a way for the light to go back. Same reason you can't go to the end of the universe if the universe would be a sphere. Or the same reason you can't travel to yesterday - there are simply no directions in which to point yourself in order to get there.
- nkrisc 10y agoIs not gravity just what we call the effects of the curvature of space-time and more or less equivalent?
- b34r 10y agoNot really. My personal belief is gravity is directly proportional the amount of space between particles. An object with extreme particle density will correspondingly have extreme gravity and vice versa. This has been observed in neutron stars, which are tightly packed. Extrapolating out this theory, I think black holes are so gravimetrically attractive because they feature a kernel of maximum-density matter at their core.