3 ms·
> ... and that "singularities" are a sign something is wrong with the model. Einstein thought that way too because his model predicted singularities in space-t
by behnamoh 2y ago
> ... and that "singularities" are a sign something is wrong with the model.
Einstein thought that way too because his model predicted singularities in space-time fabric. Turns out he was wrong. Nowadays we call them blackholes and have images of them too.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoHe wasn’t exactly wrong in that the model still breaks down for black holes. Even though we know they exist we don’t know what goes inside them.
- ben_w 2y agoBlack holes have had two different singularities in general relativity: (1) the event horizon was the first singularity, but that turned out to be a free choice of the coordinate system, i.e. a mistake in the maths — and we can't see past the event horizons anyway, so we don't know what happens on the other side of them even though they're not "real" singularities (2) the point in the centre where the geodesics stop, which everyone in the field knows is incompatible with (a) the assumption in the maths of relativity that spacetime is smooth and can be differentiated everywhere, and (b) quantum mechanics
- mnky9800n 2y agoThe image is not of the singularity itself but the accretion disc. This is not to discount that amazing accomplishment but to point out that, in addition to misrepresenting what the singularity is in a black hole, you also misrepresented what the image of a black hole is.