2 ms·

I think it's interesting that "black hole" is the least ambiguous phrase in the title of this paper. What even would be a "singularity," if we're talking about

I think it's interesting that "black hole" is the least ambiguous phrase in the title of this paper. What even would be a "singularity," if we're talking about something beyond "this is where all our equations blow up to infinity?" What would it mean, then, for a black hole to "have" such a physical thing? Other people have said already in the comments that many physicists insist that "singularities" aren't a physical thing, anyway. But, that doesn't really remove much of the ambiguity, because there's still the question of what exactly it means that the equations blow up to infinity. Who knows? All I know is that I happened to be thinking about black holes at one point in grad school while I was also taking differential topology, and I realized that a rotating black hole would "smear out" a singularity at its "center" (whatever that means) due to frame dragging, resulting in a "ring singularity." And, lo and behold, there is such a thing, and it sort of works vaguely the way I thought it would: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

westurner 3y ago
Mustn't Ring black holes also be fluid attractor system solutions? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38370118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38370118 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ Ctrl-F "n-body" "Mathematicians Found 12,000 Solutions to the Notoriously Hard Three-Body Problem" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37959364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37959364 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-37959364 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-37959364 : > Are all of the identified solutions (also) fluid attractor systems; and - if correct - shouldn't a theory of superfluid quantum gravity predict all of the n-body gravity solutions already discovered with non-fluidic numerical solutions? [...] > A sufficient theory of quantum gravity must describe n-body gravity within Bose-Einstein Condensates and also quantum levitation. ... > N-body gravity solutions with fluid vortices should predict all existing numerical n-body outcomes? > That so many things in space look fluidic - how many spiral arms are there on a nebula, [or a vortex due to a drain] all existing visual representations of black holes look like fluids, merging neutron stars look like emergent patterns from curl, too Shouldn't there be a corresponding solution with vorticity?

westurner 3y ago

Mustn't Ring black holes also be fluid attractor system solutions? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38370118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38370118 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ Ctrl-F "n-body" "Mathematicians Found 12,000 Solutions to the Notoriously Hard Three-Body Problem" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37959364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37959364 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-37959364 https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/#comment-37959364 : > Are all of the identified solutions (also) fluid attractor systems; and - if correct - shouldn't a theory of superfluid quantum gravity predict all of the n-body gravity solutions already discovered with non-fluidic numerical solutions? [...] > A sufficient theory of quantum gravity must describe n-body gravity within Bose-Einstein Condensates and also quantum levitation. ... > N-body gravity solutions with fluid vortices should predict all existing numerical n-body outcomes? > That so many things in space look fluidic - how many spiral arms are there on a nebula, [or a vortex due to a drain] all existing visual representations of black holes look like fluids, merging neutron stars look like emergent patterns from curl, too Shouldn't there be a corresponding solution with vorticity?