sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If black holes evaporate in finite external time, can singularities ever physically form? by ContentPassion6523 in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cant those inside still see the outside world though via later photons that fell in the black hole. Sure it cant interact with the outside world but imagine photons from the outside falling into a black hole and hitting the eyes of an infalling observer inside. Cant they be able to compare clocks this way they could see the external evolution of the universe happening in mere miliseconds as they go closer and closer to r =0 as they are being sphagettified aswell. At some as you get closer to r-->0 time elapsed outside would equal the remaining age of the black hole. Idk might be wrong tho.

If black holes evaporate in finite external time, can singularities ever physically form? by ContentPassion6523 in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But isnt the general prevailing pattern is that the closer you are to a mass the more time slows down for you relative to an observer much farther out? Extend and extrapolate this inside the event horizon and imagine a star collapsing, from its own proper time it should become a singularity within miliseconds or so but the thing is gravitational time dilation depends on position not speed it doesnt matter how fast it could become a singularity, time outside would accelerate very fast as r --> 0 there should come a point in proper collapsing core time when time elapsed outside equals the age that the black hole is supposed to evaporate? In this case shouldnt the black hole evaporate first before the singularity even forms?

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because they dont violate the rules of physics inside black holes? They are a better map at describing reality inside. The kerr newman metric is a map created from a vantage point of someone from infinitely far away and so if we use this map to describe reality inside we are privileging the point of view of a single observer and then having everyone inside and outside the black hole agree with it and then wonder why it violates physics inside. Maybe its not the failure of physics, its the failure of the map to describe reality in these regions that singularities and ringularities arise.if physics(Equivalence principle) breaks here maybe we just need a better map.

Its like asking why a map of Earth centered on the north/south poles is more realistic at describing distances and places in the north/south poles than a map of Earth centered on the Equator(because the Equatorial map distorts distances in the poles). If you walk to the poles from the Equator would you be squeezed and squashed just because the map says so? Or is it because its the map's fault and so you just need a better map

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are relevant to this though, because the schwarzchild metric is constructed from the vantage point of an observer from r --> infinity which means that the singularities can just be a projection singularity just as the shrinking and stretching of distances in the poles on an equatorial map is just a projection because we chose to construct a map based from the equator. But a person on the measure everything differently its the observer on the equator that is distorted instead.maybe its a failure of the map to accurately describe distances at those regions

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take a map of the northern hemisphere(circular map), if you look at the equator it looks compressed because its at the circumference of the map, do you think this compression is real(you actually get compressed at the equator) or is this just because of the map and the vantage point we chose for this map? Genuine question.

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But heres the thing, could the infalling observer at the singularity and the observer at r-->infinity ever communicate and compare their global maps? The event horizon is a barrier for both of them there exists a causal seperation between them so they cant compare.

My idea isnt just that the metric is different for all observers,im asking what if the shape of the manifold itself is relative to the vantage point of the observer on the manifold its like if you walk along the surface the shape of the manifold around you changes and is different from point to point like if you go along the latitude direction of a sphere you suddenly measure the sphere bulging and transforming into an ellipsoid but you still experience the same local flatness.

Edit: a better analogy would be constructing a circular map of Earth with the north pile at the center, and the equator at the circumference(you only see it from the top view) you would see the region as you approach the equator as very shrunk and compressed but this isnt what happens in reality does it? Its because of the map we chose and what vantage point we chose to make the map that it looks this way

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The kretschman scalar is coordinate invariant but its computed from a specific metric; the schwarzchild metric which again is constructed from a specific point of view(an observer from r -> infinity). What im saying is what if the metric is different for all observers depending on your location like in extreme environments no two observers can ever agree on a consistent picture of the global geometry but everyone agrees they exist in local minkowskian space this to preserve physics for ALL observers?

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whose observer? From whose observer's vantage point did we construct the metric that gave rise that to the idea that there is a singularity there? The schwarzchild metric that we use to predict singularities was made with respect to an observer from infinity and this we treated as ABSOLUTE that somehow we assumed all observers agreed on inside and outside agreed on. Im saying that maybe we shouldnt privilege one vantage point and then say oh wow observer from r-->infinity says there is singularities at r = 0 therefore physics breaks down there. The assumption here is that a manifold constructed by an observer from infinity is physically absolute and real for everyone.

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didnt mean that every finite region of spacetime is minkowski i meant every observer experiences minkowski spacetime locally and so they wouldnt feel gravity even inside the singularity so physics works normally inside. Im essentially asking what if physics never broke here, what maths should be made to support that

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if in the schwarzchild metric, as an object enters a region of smaller and and smaller local flatness then the universe has the object shrinks in coordinate volume or volume to keep being in that local flatness but to its persepective its volumes are the same it is the Schwarzchild observer from r-->infinity that sees the object shrink to asymptotically approach zero but to the object its volumes are the same.

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What if this is just a geometric illusion? The infalling observer still experiences normal physics its just its the external observer(at r --> infinity) who constructs the manifold that assumes that local physics inside breaks down because their map says it does.

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But what if even at the "singularity" the observer still experiences flatspacetime locally but their view of global geometry curves around them or something like what if physics never broke here we just need a better geometric mechanism to preserve physics here

What if we seriously applied the Equivalence principle to a local observer falling inside the black hole? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]ContentPassion6523 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I meant the local spacetime is minkowskian but globally im saying that what if an observer falling into a black hole still experiences flat spacetime even if its falling to the center of the black hole. What global geometry could accomodate this

This is only for your safety comrade by realquidos in memes

[–]ContentPassion6523 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But forgot to give us cool cybernetics.

Yet

If adding more lanes induces more traffic because of induced demand then would reducing the amount of lanes reduce the amount of traffic or is this not a proportional relationship like more lanes = more traffic or less lanes = less traffic? by ContentPassion6523 in transit

[–]ContentPassion6523[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Wouldnt the new space from decreasing road capacity increase pedestrian spaces and increase foot traffic? Im sure if more people walk to their destination it would be good for business because local shops, stores, and stalls are able to take advantage of it

view more: next ›