Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2017 14:49:53
-
Since gravity cancels at the centre of mass and a singularity is considered a point source then shouldn't the mass rebound due to the cancellation of gravity? Since time is dilated by gravity this explosion may be very slow at its initiation but become faster as it expands. Giving an inflationary epoch.
-
Whether or not gravity exists exactly at the singularity wouldn't change the fact that it's deep inside of a gravity well and cloaked behind an event horizon. Any attempt by the singularity to explode would be rather frustrated by those facts.
-
Whether or not gravity exists exactly at the singularity wouldn't change the fact that it's deep inside of a gravity well and cloaked behind an event horizon. Any attempt by the singularity to explode would be rather frustrated by those facts.
Do you have any observational evidence for that assertion? I have none for mine.
-
Can we speculate wildly here?
Extra dimensions would be very interesting here if they were applicable to very small sizes(ranges?) .
I read something about torsion too. Apparently the spin of particles might show up as torsion (whatever that is-I can fetch the link if anyone is interested)
-
Can we speculate wildly here?
Extra dimensions would be very interesting here if they were applicable to very small sizes(ranges?) .
I read something about torsion too. Apparently the spin of particles might show up as torsion (whatever that is-I can fetch the link if anyone is interested)
If you have any links related to mainstream science that is fine.
-
The universe itself is contained within its own Schwarzschild radius and yet it is expanding. It is hypothesised to have originated from a singularity so what difference is there between that situation an a supermassive black hole? It may be a case of critical mass. Something like the Chandrasekhar limit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
-
If you have any links related to mainstream science that is fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe
is where I read this. I am not sure what credence to accord to the ideas in that but that is where I came across the "torsion" term. I am not qualified to open a discussion on (or probably to engage in) this subject but am naturally interested if there are areas I am able to understand.
-
If you have any links related to mainstream science that is fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe
is where I read this. I am not sure what credence to accord to the ideas in that but that is where I came across the "torsion" term. I am not qualified to open a discussion on (or probably to engage in) this subject but am naturally interested if there are areas I am able to understand.
Since particles have spin angular momentum this interacts with 'spacetime' (more likely vacuum fluctuations) to produce a repulsion that can counteract gravity in the strong field inside black holes. I am not sure about this since I have seen no detail of the theory.
-
Do you have any observational evidence for that assertion? I have none for mine.
Observational evidence for the physical properties of black holes is almost non-existent. All we have are telescopic observations of stars orbiting massive, invisible objects and gravitational wave detections of black hole mergers. What I'm talking about is based on what is predicted to be true of black holes based on the known laws of physics. A singularity should be deep inside of a steep gravity well and it should be cloaked behind an event horizon.
In the case of the Universe expanding, it's not exactly analogous to a singularity exploding because space itself is what is expanding in the Universe. It's not an explosion as such.
-
A singularity should be deep inside of a steep gravity well
I am fairly sure "singularity" is just a shorthand for "the model no longer applies"
My take is that the mathematical term "singularity" should not be applied in physics but it is because it is such a sexy (false) concept.
Happy to be contradicted naturally.
-
I am fairly sure "singularity" is just a shorthand for "the model no longer applies"
My take is that the mathematical term "singularity" should not be applied in physics but it is because it is such a sexy (false) concept.
Happy to be contradicted naturally.
I agree that singularities as described in general relativity probably don't exist. Quantum physics wouldn't like them one bit. It's probably something very, very tiny but with a finite size. Either that or it becomes something else strange altogether.I have read that black hole singularities could conceivably tunnel into another dimension and cause their own Big Bang. If that was true, I suppose it hearkens back to jeffreyH's original post. It makes me wonder if the original black hole would disappear from our reality if such a thing were to occur.