3 ms·

Defect means imperfection, shortcoming, flaw. This implies reality has a design, a plan, that it was executed according to, which execution can have defects in

Defect means imperfection, shortcoming, flaw. This implies reality has a design, a plan, that it was executed according to, which execution can have defects in it, compared to the plan. Design & plan means designer & planner. So yeah, we should be careful what words we use.

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
It also means an irregularity in an otherwise regular structure. It's jargon, which probably shouldn't be used in a popular science article, but it does not imply any sort of plan.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  > which probably shouldn't be used in a popular science article Depends on if you're maximizing for 'engagement' I guess :/
- BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
  Define "regular structure". So the center of the sun is as regular as my living room, but a black hole is a bit too much for someone. For whom though? And how did they decide this?
BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Funny that I get downvoted. I'm curious what is pissing everyone off that much. Physics and spacetime have no "defect" unless you define relative to what. Our theories of physics are just models we work with for our benefit, reality is entirely unconstrained by our models and concerns. And our opinions of a "defect" with respect to our models. We've long known the singularity is only "singularity" with respect to General Relativity. It's the place where the model breaks down. The model, not reality.
- _Microft 3y ago
  "Defect" has a different meaning here than it has in common language, so people disagree with the comment. If you are curious, then try articles like on "Topological defect", "Crystallographic defect", "Cosmic string", ... in Wikipedia to get an idea what defect is supposed to mean here. > Our theories of physics are just models we work with for our benefit, reality is entirely unconstrained by our models and concerns. True but every student of physics is taught right from the beginning that every model only has a range of parameters in which it is valid. Example: you can easily calculate speeds non-relativistically just fine if you are aware that you will only get good approximations of reality if the speeds involved are a low (~ single-digit) percentage of the speed of light. Outside of that, the results will be non-sense. We create the models after reality and use these models to predict things. After experiments, we know if the the model is still valid in a new range of parameters. Since we know that the laws of nature do not change (we can and do test that!), we can now assume that we have a model that fits well with reality in a wider range than before. What you see here in progress is exactly the attempt to find an alternative explanation for that what we expect blackholes to look like because we know that our models might not be right there.

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago

It also means an irregularity in an otherwise regular structure. It's jargon, which probably shouldn't be used in a popular science article, but it does not imply any sort of plan.

furyofantares 3y ago
> which probably shouldn't be used in a popular science article Depends on if you're maximizing for 'engagement' I guess :/
BulgarianIdiot 3y ago
Define "regular structure". So the center of the sun is as regular as my living room, but a black hole is a bit too much for someone. For whom though? And how did they decide this?

BulgarianIdiot 3y ago

Funny that I get downvoted. I'm curious what is pissing everyone off that much. Physics and spacetime have no "defect" unless you define relative to what. Our theories of physics are just models we work with for our benefit, reality is entirely unconstrained by our models and concerns. And our opinions of a "defect" with respect to our models. We've long known the singularity is only "singularity" with respect to General Relativity. It's the place where the model breaks down. The model, not reality.

_Microft 3y ago
"Defect" has a different meaning here than it has in common language, so people disagree with the comment. If you are curious, then try articles like on "Topological defect", "Crystallographic defect", "Cosmic string", ... in Wikipedia to get an idea what defect is supposed to mean here. > Our theories of physics are just models we work with for our benefit, reality is entirely unconstrained by our models and concerns. True but every student of physics is taught right from the beginning that every model only has a range of parameters in which it is valid. Example: you can easily calculate speeds non-relativistically just fine if you are aware that you will only get good approximations of reality if the speeds involved are a low (~ single-digit) percentage of the speed of light. Outside of that, the results will be non-sense. We create the models after reality and use these models to predict things. After experiments, we know if the the model is still valid in a new range of parameters. Since we know that the laws of nature do not change (we can and do test that!), we can now assume that we have a model that fits well with reality in a wider range than before. What you see here in progress is exactly the attempt to find an alternative explanation for that what we expect blackholes to look like because we know that our models might not be right there.