5 ms·
Neither of those are "very good sources". Further, they are basically mathematical modelling papers. We have a lot of experimental evidence about the nature o
by dekhn 2y ago
Neither of those are "very good sources". Further, they are basically mathematical modelling papers. We have a lot of experimental evidence about the nature of black holes. If you argument is just "black holes might not be a true singularity", well, nobody is strongly disagreeing with that, we just don't have evidence or good support for alternative models. People aren't being dogmatic, they just don't have any better models that explain the observations.
- TheBlight 2y agoLaura Mersini-Houghton and Roy Kerr seem like very good sources to me. Are you familiar with their work? It seems not. A "black hole" implies a singularity behind an event horizon not even light can escape from. There isn't any proof that such a thing exists in nature. You're correct in saying that we see the indirect gravitational effects of something that doesn't fit any model our imaginations have conjured up to date except for "black hole." That doesn't mean it's clear that black holes are a real thing.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago> You're correct in saying […] a real thing. This is, indeed, how science works. "All models are wrong", as they say. I'm not sure what you're trying to push back against.
- TheBlight 2y agoThat would be perfectly lovely for me if that was actually the attitude of most people weighing in on these discussions. But in practice, when it's insinuated that a more beloved sci-fi model may perhaps be incorrect/incoherent it's met with people being upset that it's being pointed out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dekhn 2y agoI would not be upset if black holes are not singularities although I would be surprised if they didn't have event horizons. IIUC you're basically talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsingular_black_hole_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsingular_black_hole_models which don't seem to be fully mainstream, nor supported by any observed evidence.
- TheBlight 2y agoI'm not advocating for any given alternative model really. I primarily want to call out that we're not really sure what we mean when we say "black hole" and there is good reason to be at least a little skeptical-- especially of models invoking a singularity. The vast majority of people take it as a given that black holes as depicted by popular sci-fi films/TV exist in nature and we're far from being sure of that. Somewhat related and maybe interesting to you: https://www.llnl.gov/article/40576/black-hole-loses-its-appetite-gassy-cloud https://www.llnl.gov/article/40576/black-hole-loses-its-appe...
- dekhn 2y agoI read the linked news article and the related paper and it just says that they're struggling to figure out what one of the light sources that's orbiting the hole is made of. The article doesn't really say much that isn't mainstream understanding of black holes.
- TheBlight 2y agoYou sort of have to read between the lines with popular science reporting. Prior to the event, the gas cloud was spotted and it was big news in the media as this would effectively be an empirical test of black hole theory and we'd get to see it in action. But the event came and went and nothing remarkable happened. You had to look it up to find out what ended up happening because it wasn't widely reported. We're still trying to come up with answers for why the experiment didn't turn out as expected. So we either don't understand the gas cloud or our SgA* black hole model isn't correct (or some combination of both.) In either case, we seemed quite sure prior to the event. I think anomalies like this are where the really interesting information lies and we should be more humble wrt the veracity of our current models.
- mr_toad 2y agoGR implies a singularity, but there are other possible forms of black holes e.g. Hayward black holes. They would require a new theory of gravity.