4 ms·

> Anyone who has taken a graduate level class in General Relativity would have been able to tell you the same. You say that and yet this thread is full of peop

by bmitc 1mo ago

> Anyone who has taken a graduate level class in General Relativity would have been able to tell you the same. You say that and yet this thread is full of people arguing about it, and there's an entire Wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity. In fact, that article says: > No complete and precise definition of singularities exist in the theory of general relativity, So which is it? It can't both be trivial to any grad student but also an open question. And things like naked singularities aren't proven to not exist either. Also, general relativity is a classical, geometric-only theory. It seems obvious that better understanding what a black hole's singularity is would require quantum mechanics because the singularity is effectively what's "left over" of the physical material once you go beyond a neutron star.

GoblinSlayer 1mo ago
> And things like naked singularities aren't proven to not exist either. What do you mean by not exist? If you postulate the right black hole with a naked singularity, it would have a naked singularity. > It seems obvious that better understanding what a black hole's singularity is would require quantum mechanics If you postulate a classical black hole, it won't require quantum mechanics to understand.
sigmoid10 1mo ago
That's what you get when you start reading wikipedia about such an advanced topic without knowing anything about it. Wikipedia actually starts to crack as a reliable source for laypeople and on top of that begins to mix science and metascience pseudobabble, because there is a lot of confusing and misinformed content out there about the topic. But if you're not an actual expert, there is no way to differentiate the quality of different sources, so they get stuck in wiki articles by normal editors. If you had checked the links from your quote, you'd have seen that this idea was not pulled from physics PhDs, but from philosophy PhDs. Take that as you want, but any actual physicist or mathematician would have told you the sentence right after the one you quoted is what actually matters. The basic math is not that hard. Neither are the implications of the math (as long as you want to remain in rigorous land and not step into quack territory). In contrast, the general implications on our reality as a whole is what gets certain people (i.e. philosophers) riled up, but they can't really contribute to the topic since philosophy is basically science without rigor. That's why these discussions are limited to wikipedia articles and philosophy departments. Everyone else is busy actually calculating things and passing this cumbersome concept of peer-review.
- bmitc 1mo ago
  > without knowing anything about it Yea, okay.

by bmitc 1mo ago

GoblinSlayer 1mo ago

> And things like naked singularities aren't proven to not exist either. What do you mean by not exist? If you postulate the right black hole with a naked singularity, it would have a naked singularity. > It seems obvious that better understanding what a black hole's singularity is would require quantum mechanics If you postulate a classical black hole, it won't require quantum mechanics to understand.

sigmoid10 1mo ago

That's what you get when you start reading wikipedia about such an advanced topic without knowing anything about it. Wikipedia actually starts to crack as a reliable source for laypeople and on top of that begins to mix science and metascience pseudobabble, because there is a lot of confusing and misinformed content out there about the topic. But if you're not an actual expert, there is no way to differentiate the quality of different sources, so they get stuck in wiki articles by normal editors. If you had checked the links from your quote, you'd have seen that this idea was not pulled from physics PhDs, but from philosophy PhDs. Take that as you want, but any actual physicist or mathematician would have told you the sentence right after the one you quoted is what actually matters. The basic math is not that hard. Neither are the implications of the math (as long as you want to remain in rigorous land and not step into quack territory). In contrast, the general implications on our reality as a whole is what gets certain people (i.e. philosophers) riled up, but they can't really contribute to the topic since philosophy is basically science without rigor. That's why these discussions are limited to wikipedia articles and philosophy departments. Everyone else is busy actually calculating things and passing this cumbersome concept of peer-review.

bmitc 1mo ago
> without knowing anything about it Yea, okay.