### Black Hole problems?!??!

Posted:

**Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:40 am**I've often heard that laws of physics breaks down at Black Holes ..but they never describe the problems, anyone could shed some light on this?

Thanks!

Thanks!

For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.

http://forum.philosophynow.org/

Page **1** of **1**

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:40 am**

I've often heard that laws of physics breaks down at Black Holes ..but they never describe the problems, anyone could shed some light on this?

Thanks!

Thanks!

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:19 am**

My simple understanding, that more educated members can flesh out (or contradict) is that the singularity is the anomaly:

The theoretical singularity that comes from black hole equations is of zero size, infinite density and gravity. Clearly something else is going on that we don't understand because those kinds of infinities are seemingly impossible.

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

The theoretical singularity that comes from black hole equations is of zero size, infinite density and gravity. Clearly something else is going on that we don't understand because those kinds of infinities are seemingly impossible.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:01 pm**

The laws of physics are really just descriptions of how matter works and interacts in certain (currently uniform and apparently universal) conditions.

A singularity is a point where conditions differ from the (current) norm leading to different descriptions.

Bottom line: 'laws of physics' is a sloppy, misleading, construct.

A singularity is a point where conditions differ from the (current) norm leading to different descriptions.

Bottom line: 'laws of physics' is a sloppy, misleading, construct.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:48 pm**

There are no singularities in the real world. Consider (for example) the black hole as a substantial defect (cavity?) in the structure of aether (in physical space/vacuum)...

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:23 am**

irresistible black holes are centered in chocolate donuts...

-Imp

-Imp

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:53 pm**

HexHammer wrote:I've often heard that laws of physics breaks down at Black Holes ..but they never describe the problems, anyone could shed some light on this?

Thanks!

It's a load of hyperbolic bollocks, really. It's not the blackhole so much as the hypothetical 'singularity'. A singularity is a point which has no physical dimensions: no height, no width, no depth. You can describe a point like that mathematically, but to say it exists physically is nonsense. Then to make it even sillier, there is no volume, but it contains matter, so the density, or curvature of spacetime, is infinite. It is just showboating when physicists talk in terms of 'The Laws of Physics' in this way. All it really means is that you can describe things in maths that simply don't happen. There is no perfect triangle. You cannot travel at the speed of light. You can't have x oranges, where x is the square root of minus one. What we call the laws of physics are mathematical relationships that we have discovered; maths includes 0 and infinity; reality doesn't.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:54 pm**

Interesting assertion, especially since no spatial extension has ever been measured for matter, so it is interesting to assert that actual volume must be consumed by it.uwot wrote:It's a load of hyperbolic bollocks, really. It's not the blackhole so much as the hypothetical 'singularity'. A singularity is a point which has no physical dimensions: no height, no width, no depth. You can describe a point like that mathematically, but to say it exists physically is nonsense. Then to make it even sillier, there is no volume, but it contains matter, so the density, or curvature of spacetime, is infinite. It is just showboating when physicists talk in terms of 'The Laws of Physics' in this way. All it really means is that you can describe things in maths that simply don't happen. There is no perfect triangle. You cannot travel at the speed of light. You can't have x oranges, where x is the square root of minus one. What we call the laws of physics are mathematical relationships that we have discovered; maths includes 0 and infinity; reality doesn't.

Suppose I drop a 1KG water balloon into a black hole. What would be its finite weight when (what's left of) it reaches the bottom? What force would supply this weight? On Earth, EM force supplies weight. Without EM, everything would be in freefall and weigh nothing, as does everything in orbit. OK, if we had no orbital velocity, eventually nuclear forces would resist falling beyond a certain density, and we'd have weight again, about a billion times the weight given with EM. There must be a 5th force that is repulsive and stronger than gravity at these densities, that would prevent further collapse of any finite volume of matter. Absent that force, no finite volume can be maintained.

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:45 pm**

Noax wrote:Interesting assertion, especially since no spatial extension has ever been measured for matter, so it is interesting to assert that actual volume must be consumed by it.

Well, yes and no. See what you make of this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/lif ... is-a-quark We can go into the actual papers if you'd rather.

Noax wrote:Suppose I drop a 1KG water balloon into a black hole. What would be its finite weight when (what's left of) it reaches the bottom?

Nothing. If it's in the middle, there is little or no net force in any direction.

Noax wrote:What force would supply this weight? On Earth, EM force supplies weight. Without EM, everything would be in freefall and weigh nothing, as does everything in orbit.

What is different about EM on the surface of Earth or in orbit?

Noax wrote:OK, if we had no orbital velocity, eventually nuclear forces would resist falling beyond a certain density, and we'd have weight again, about a billion times the weight given with EM. There must be a 5th force that is repulsive and stronger than gravity at these densities, that would prevent further collapse of any finite volume of matter. Absent that force, no finite volume can be maintained.

So you are asserting that there is such a thing as finite volume?

Posted: **Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:32 pm**

Says there's an upper limit, and found no lower one. Physics has an interesting definition of what it means to 'hit' something. It doesn't mean physical contact.uwot wrote:Well, yes and no. See what you make of this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/lif ... is-a-quark We can go into the actual papers if you'd rather.

Not in the middle, since there's a finite size thingy in the middle on which our water sits and has weight. Or does the ocean weigh little to nothing because it is distributed? Weight is not net force.Nothing. If it's in the middle, there is little or no net force in any direction.

[/quote]What is different about EM on the surface of Earth or in orbit?[/quote]In orbit, EM does not resist the force of gravity. You fall. On the surface, EM force prevents you from falling, thus giving you weight. That EM force prevents gravity from smushing Earth into a clump about the size of a sports stadium where other forces will eventually halt the collapse to even smaller sizes.

What?? A 1-meter cube has a finite volume of a cubic meter. So sure, but not sure how you got that from the above statement, where I was asking what would prevent gravity from collapsing a sufficiently dense thing down to a singularity? Why is that absurd?Noax wrote:OK, if we had no orbital velocity, eventually nuclear forces would resist falling beyond a certain density, and we'd have weight again, about a billion times the weight given with EM. There must be a 5th force that is repulsive and stronger than gravity at these densities, that would prevent further collapse of any finite volume of matter. Absent that force, no finite volume can be maintained.

So you are asserting that there is such a thing as finite volume?

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:10 am**

Noax wrote:Says there's an upper limit, and found no lower one. Physics has an interesting definition of what it means to 'hit' something. It doesn't mean physical contact.

I've tried to illustrate this on the 5th page of What is the universe made of? http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.id

Noax wrote:Not in the middle, since there's a finite size thingy in the middle on which our water sits and has weight.

Well, that is the issue that HexHammer was asking about. Does a singularity have finite size? Mathematically, it doesn't have to. When you are dealing with numbers, popping a 0 in isn't a problem; it only gets silly, if you are talking about something physical existing, but which has no physical size.

Noax wrote:Or does the ocean weigh little to nothing because it is distributed? Weight is not net force.

Weight, as I understand it, is the net force a given gravitational field exerts on a mass.

Noax wrote:In orbit, EM does not resist the force of gravity. You fall. On the surface, EM force prevents you from falling, thus giving you weight. That EM force prevents gravity from smushing Earth into a clump about the size of a sports stadium where other forces will eventually halt the collapse to even smaller sizes.

EM is the stuff that keeps the thing in orbit together. I get that EM is the force that overcomes gravity, but that's because of its role in making 'solid' objects, like planets and people.

Sorry, left out the context; we were talking about subatomic particles and singularities.Noax wrote:What?? A 1-meter cube has a finite volume of a cubic meter. So sure, but not sure how you got that from the above statement, where I was asking what would prevent gravity from collapsing a sufficiently dense thing down to a singularity? Why is that absurd?

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:44 am**

It does admittedly push the definition of 'to exist'. For instance, time ends at the center of a black hole. How can you say something exists anymore at the end of time? The usual rules don't apply, and that's what they mean by the singularity: A boundary beyond which the rules do not apply.uwot wrote:Well, that is the issue that HexHammer was asking about. Does a singularity have finite size? Mathematically, it doesn't have to. When you are dealing with numbers, popping a 0 in isn't a problem; it only gets silly, if you are talking about something physical existing, but which has no physical size.

Then the people on the space station would not be weightless. There's definitely a gravitational force on them (and nothing countering that force, so it is all net-force), but weight comes from something resisting the acceleration the gravitational force would otherwise give you. The space station guys accelerate much more than I do here on the surface, so I have weight and they don't. My net-force is much less, since EM of the floor counters the gravity pulling the other way.Weight, as I understand it, is the net force a given gravitational field exerts on a mass.

OK. No actual volume consumed by mass has ever been measured. Your link describes an upper limit to it, but efforts to 'hit' a quark just means getting close enough to it to deflect something most unlikely to hit it. What, a neutrino or something? Not sure what they were throwing at the quarks to determine their target cross section.Sorry, left out the context; we were talking about subatomic particles and singularities.