4 ms·
The problem with "analogue" black holes is that they are modeling what we think we already know about black holes. So we've essentially looked up at space, said
by ccvannorman 10y ago
The problem with "analogue" black holes is that they are modeling what we think we already know about black holes. So we've essentially looked up at space, said "There's a weird thing that breaks the laws of physics and works like XYZ, so let's model exactly XYZ to see if the behaviors match up to predictions in the lab."
You shouldn't expect to find any surprises if your lab mockup of the thing you're studying is based off the predictive models.
To find something novel you need something that actually does break the laws of physics, not something that will merely produce the same result if our assumptions about the object were correct. It's kind of a tautology.
- nikofeyn 10y agomy assumption was that you build something that models what we know about the black hole but then look for new properties in the model since we can actually "play" with it. then we try and map the new properties or physics back to the real object. i don't know if that's what's happening, but it seems to be a decent approach.
- sevenless 10y agoI think it's more that, they are systems that model what we know about gravity and light, just taken to an extreme point where light can't escape. That speculation is where the notion of black holes came from in the first place. If you have a physical system that behaves like gravity and light in some way and is easier to study, it's pretty reasonable to turn the dial up to a point where analog-light can't escape from analog-gravity and see if it can confirm your theories about black holes. It could quite easily lead to surprises.