3 ms·
Maybe I don’t know how compact these objects are, but I suppose I am assuming that the event horizon is always large enough to conceal a sufficiently massive ob
by binary132 2y ago
Maybe I don’t know how compact these objects are, but I suppose I am assuming that the event horizon is always large enough to conceal a sufficiently massive object of extreme or arbitrary density, greater than than that of a neutron star, such as a “quark star” or similar. Is that erroneous?
If so, then a followup: why can’t we imagine an object of arbitrary density sufficient that the massive object is also small enough? Why does it need to be a mathematical discontinuity or otherwise goofy universal exception-to-the-rule? We obviously can’t observe it, so isn’t it simply that the mathematics expresses the fact that we cannot observe it?
- pdonis 2y ago> I suppose I am assuming that the event horizon is always large enough to conceal a sufficiently massive object of extreme or arbitrary density No, it isn't. It is impossible for a stable compact object made of ordinary matter that is smaller than the event horizon size for its mass to exist. In fact it is impossible for a stable compact object made of ordinary matter that is smaller than 9/8 of its event horizon size to exist. This result is known as Buchdahl's Theorem.