4 ms·

I thought the general determination of the singularity came from the 1916 schwartzchild solution to einsteins field equations. I would note that reality is vac

I thought the general determination of the singularity came from the 1916 schwartzchild solution to einsteins field equations. I would note that reality is vacuously what reality is, regardless of model agreement. This however doesn’t mean reality isn’t weirder than we observe. That’s usually the first lesson you learn as you move beyond Newtonian physics.

Jensson 3y ago
> I thought the general determination of the singularity came from the 1916 schwartzchild solution to einsteins field equations. Only if you have a point mass. There is no reason to believe that point masses exists, it all being fields makes more sense. Einstein himself scoffed at the idea of such singularities existing, so those singularities aren't part of the core theory, just one of the possible results. (Not saying Einstein has to be right here, just that he didn't envision such singularities to exist when he created the theory)
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  As far as we can tell, electrons are point objects. Why shouldn’t there be others?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Electrons are fields, not points. You can compress it to arbitrarily small spaces, but that doesn't make it a point.
gnramires 3y ago
The schwartzchild solution comes with a bunch of caveats! For example, it is eternal, it's not the result of a collapse solution. As far as I know, no one has an analytic solution yet for black hole collapse of say a star in finite time. For an outside observer, in fact I believe an infalling object into a black hole is never observed to reach the event horizon at all. Since the infalling object could communicate (using light) with the outside observer, there's a sense in which they must agree on whether the object has or hasn't crossed the event horizon -- in this case, the non-observation of crossing the event horizon must not be just apparent, because of this communication. Since event horizons couldn't form in this case, then it should follow that a black hole cannot gain mass at all. I've yet to see a satisfactory debunk of those claims, at least at a level I could understand.

Jensson 3y ago

> I thought the general determination of the singularity came from the 1916 schwartzchild solution to einsteins field equations. Only if you have a point mass. There is no reason to believe that point masses exists, it all being fields makes more sense. Einstein himself scoffed at the idea of such singularities existing, so those singularities aren't part of the core theory, just one of the possible results. (Not saying Einstein has to be right here, just that he didn't envision such singularities to exist when he created the theory)

zmgsabst 3y ago
As far as we can tell, electrons are point objects. Why shouldn’t there be others?
- Jensson 3y ago
  Electrons are fields, not points. You can compress it to arbitrarily small spaces, but that doesn't make it a point.

gnramires 3y ago

The schwartzchild solution comes with a bunch of caveats! For example, it is eternal, it's not the result of a collapse solution. As far as I know, no one has an analytic solution yet for black hole collapse of say a star in finite time. For an outside observer, in fact I believe an infalling object into a black hole is never observed to reach the event horizon at all. Since the infalling object could communicate (using light) with the outside observer, there's a sense in which they must agree on whether the object has or hasn't crossed the event horizon -- in this case, the non-observation of crossing the event horizon must not be just apparent, because of this communication. Since event horizons couldn't form in this case, then it should follow that a black hole cannot gain mass at all. I've yet to see a satisfactory debunk of those claims, at least at a level I could understand.