3 ms·
If I am not completely wrong, this headline has nothing to do with the linked article. The article is about "topological solitons" that - according to the artic
by metanonsense 3y ago
If I am not completely wrong, this headline has nothing to do with the linked article. The article is about "topological solitons" that - according to the article - look "to outside observers" like black holes.
- wrycoder 3y agoThe phys.org article isn't worth spending time on. It's better to read the original arxiv paper that @supermatou linked in a peer thread.
- kadoban 3y agoI think the headline just doesn't do enough work specifying how unlikely this is. The article otherwise seems to match. We are "outside observers", correct? So black holes we see "might" (theoretically, in an unproven and maybe unprovable system of physics) be defects in spacetime.
- metanonsense 3y agoI share your understanding but when the article does not even mention that possibility, a link text seems to be an odd place to make such a claim.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoOnly if you don’t look at it through the lens of selling advertisements based on impressions.
- digging 3y agoI don't understand how you didn't take that away from the article... it was clear to me what it was saying.
- metanonsense 3y agoCan you give me some pointers where you read this? I mean, at the end they even write "It's only once you got close would you realize that you are not looking at a black hole." I take from that that they are aware that black holes are different from topological solitons. And I read at no place that they consider black holes actually being topologial solitons. So, when the authors think that those two things are different and they classify solitons as "defects in spacetime", wouldn't this directly contradict the headline "Black holes might be defects in spacetime"? I would be glad if you showed me where my reasoning is wrong.
- kadoban 3y agoMaybe the disconnect is that there's an implicit "[What we see as] Black holes might be defects in spacetime" in front of the headline. We can't get close to black holes, maybe ever but certainly not currently, so the difference between what the article is saying and how you're reading it is a bit philosophical IMO. The article glossed over it a bit, but from the sounds of it, every observation we know of from our position (and current technology level) would match.
- digging 3y agoI see. My reading was that black holes don't exist. That there is an alternative, topological explanation for the phenomena we've observed and so far classified as black holes.