4 ms·
>but how controversial is the idea of true singularities being inside I don't know any physicist that would believe this. Singularities happen mathematically d
by ChrisLomont 6y ago
>but how controversial is the idea of true singularities being inside
I don't know any physicist that would believe this. Singularities happen mathematically due to GR being continuous space and time and material, but we know material is not continuous, and it's possible space and time are not also. So pretty much every one I have ever read or talked to about this believes that once GR is corrected for the quantum level, the singularities will go away, since they by definition would require quantum scale behavior, and it's known GR is not a quantized theory.
Note that the "Plank star" is a LQG theory, and LQG has so far failed to reproduce much of anything, so it's not clear at all how that will play out. It hasn't even been shown to reproduce GR at the appropriate scales, and it was recently a big deal when LQG was made consistent on a circle. It's no where ready to deal with 4D spacetime yet.
My guess is LQG, like so many other theories of gravity, will die out as more and more pieces of it end up disagreeing with experiments.
- meowface 6y agoThanks for the clarification on LQG. As a totally uninformed layman, your description of the singularity was also my understanding. I only brought up the question because this is the second paragraph of the original comment in this sub-thread: >Would it be possible or plausible that singularity actually does not exist, but just that the theory of general relativity is not a correct description of space/time/matter in small scale? I am thinking in classical theory, when things were treated as point mass/charges, infinity exist in the solution of point sources. Basically, I wasn't sure why they were getting so much criticism for this, because it sounded pretty reasonable to me.