[HN Gopher] First proof that "plunging regions" exist around bla...
___________________________________________________________________
First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in
space
Author : carbocation
Score : 71 points
Date : 2024-05-18 03:15 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ox.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ox.ac.uk)
| gigatexal wrote:
| Still continues to amaze me that the more they look the more they
| confirm Einstein. Yet we know -- or strongly suspect -- that at
| the singularity and within the BH general relativity breaks down.
| I hope we see a unification of GR and Quantum mechanics in my
| lifetime. Would be really neat
| cdchn wrote:
| Not to bring the all pervasive AI topic into this discussion,
| but I think the best hope we have for finding that unification
| depends on an AI superintelligence. I wonder if we've reached
| the limit of what a singular human mind can push.
| klyrs wrote:
| > I wonder if we've reached the limit of what a singular
| human mind can push.
|
| You people are becoming zombies. Get away from your computer
| and interact with the world. Humans with profound intellect
| are producing the content that LLMs regurgitate for you.
| bisby wrote:
| No one mentioned LLMs.
|
| We know that there are things that computers can flat out
| do better than humans, because there are limits to human
| brains. If computers continue to grow in power, then the
| fact that someday there might be an AI (actual AI, not LLM)
| which can come up with novel solutions is totally
| plausible. And if we go past that point and computers
| continue to become more powerful, then it's likely that the
| AI will continue to grow and become more powerful as well.
| And if the AI eternally expands its thinking capabilities
| with time, then it will inevitably surpass humans one day.
|
| Do we need to get to that point to solve physics? Probably
| not. We're not at the limits of human ingenuity yet. But
| mentioning AI doesn't mean "I think LLMs in the next 3
| months will solve everything!" either. No need to be so
| defensive about someone wistfully pondering about the
| limits of humanity.
| card_zero wrote:
| None of that is fact, or inevitable, or meaningful. What
| are "thinking capabilities", what are they made of? More
| RAM? A human can have more RAM, by installing it in the
| human's computer. More parallelism? Maybe, but that's
| like having more humans. More speed? It's not clear what
| you'd do with it, since research tends to involve
| interaction and the outside world has a pace of its own:
| sitting in a cell on amphetamines does not make you
| brilliant. More of some unknown component of the yet-to-
| be-discovered formula for intelligence? Maybe, if it even
| works that way, which is a massive assumption.
|
| I'm sorry, I'm not buying "superintelligence", outside of
| sci-fi plots. Even there it's kind of irritating deus ex
| machina stuff.
| Vampiero wrote:
| I'd agree with what you're saying, but the jump to "not
| believing in superintelligence" doesn't make sense
| either. Are you implying that humans are the absolute
| peak of intelligence or that computers can't ever achieve
| something that is even just one iota better than human-
| level intelligence?
|
| There's one thing machines have that we don't: time. A
| human-level AI would be better than a human because you
| can ask it to solve a problem for years on end without
| ever resting.
| card_zero wrote:
| I'm implying that intelligence doesn't have quantifiable
| levels, so I disagree with "peak" and "better" as
| concepts. I know we can become better at solving problems
| in a domain, often with the assistance of tools. But I
| think the bogeyman of "superintelligence" is just a human
| with better tools. Perhaps including a synthetic brain. I
| expect its smarts to be cultural, made of ideas,
| _mediated_ by technology, as usual, and domain-dependent,
| as usual, and not frighteningly "super" for the culture
| it exists in. I anticipate AGI as a development of us.
|
| OK, so, maybe there are paradigm shifts to be reached
| that way, and maybe technology (familiarity with tools)
| will be crucial for these paradigm shifts which are the
| only way to understand certain new things intuitively.
| But, maybe this has been going on already, even before
| there were computers.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Humans do that too, ie research institutes.
| redundantly wrote:
| I read their comment more as a nod to The Last Question
| than speaking about the recent "AI" in the news.
|
| https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_S
| e...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
| Sakos wrote:
| Then they should've made an explicit reference. As is, I
| don't see any indication that they're even aware that The
| Last Question exists and it sounds like every other LLM
| fanatic.
| redundantly wrote:
| The term AI has been around a heckuva lot longer than the
| current LLM hype. It's not unreasonable to make that
| assumption, to link it along the lines of what AI really
| means vs how the term has been used as of late.
| cdchn wrote:
| Yes, it was more along the lines of The Last Question,
| wasn't even thinking about LLM.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Yes the LLM hype can be annoying.
|
| Equally if not more annoying is the smug disdain of those
| who criticize it.
|
| Even more annoying than that is people too caught up in
| "the world" and "serious matters" to read some sci-fi.
| klyrs wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, I love reading and watching sci-fi!
| And actually, that's a great source of inspiration to
| keep my mind sharp; a superintelligence unleashed on our
| world today, with pathetically insecure networked
| listening devices in all of our pockets, a populace
| demonstrably manipulable through social media, etc;
| humanity has nothing but literal prayer to protect itself
| from actual superintelligence. Which isn't an actual
| defense, but hope feels nice.
|
| Let's be clear: what we have today is LLMs. Not
| superintelligence. When people drool over the promise of
| superintelligence, to the exclusion of curiosity about
| the problems we intelligent humans can solve, they've
| bought into a thought-terminating utopian fantasy. That's
| a dead brain, that will not help humanity progress.
| Zombies.
|
| Superintelligence, should it ever arise, is my enemy. The
| disdain that I have for its adherents is born of self-
| preservation.
|
| edit to add clarity regarding my admonition to experience
| "the world": whoever receives all of their knowledge from
| computer sources is readily replaced by an automaton with
| access to the same. Those of us who are curious about the
| world around us are capable of making observations yet to
| be recorded in electronic form. Be curious, my friend, or
| succumb to zombiehood.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| At the risk of repeating myself, yes the LLM hype is
| quite overdone and annoying. What you say is true people
| have bought into a fantasy which is wholly unrealistic.
|
| Unfortunately your view is altogether tiresome and much
| harder to scroll past than the juvenile LLM excitement
| because it could actually do some real harm in the long
| term. No 'The Terminator" was not a documentary, nor was
| "The Matrix" nor even is your favorite episode of "Black
| Mirror".
|
| Watts is far more eloquent than I could ever be on this
| subject matter. I highly recommend this article in The
| Atlantic by him and if you havent picked up any of his
| work I highly recommend pretty much anything hes ever
| written.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/ai-
| conscio...
| klyrs wrote:
| I was cured of blind techno-optimism years ago. The race
| for superintelligence is between ad-slinging megacorps
| and authoritarian governments. Whoever wins, we humans
| lose.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| I Feel like were having two different conversations here.
| Who said anything about optimism? Are those the two
| options now optimism or doomerism? No space left for
| anything approaching realism?
|
| I criticize blind techno-doomerism for its use of clanky
| old worn out cliches from the sci-fi of last century. I
| criticize LLM bros for being naive and blinded by
| advertising. Both groups completely misunderstood the
| relevant sci-fi from this century, if they actually
| bothered to read any.
|
| Sometimes between the rabid hype-bros and the holier-
| than-thou doomers you can find actual conversation about
| the nature of human interaction with theoretical future
| machine intelligence, how LLMs relate to that and the
| technical aspects of creating such a thing. Its rare but
| it is out there.
| klyrs wrote:
| You called me annoying because I don't read sci-fi. Now I
| stand accused of reading the wrong the wrong sci-fi?
| Whatever.
|
| Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
| cdchn wrote:
| The idea for me comes less from AI than the slowdown, I
| think, of really ground breaking science. We're still
| proving Einstein's ideas, we haven't really moved much
| beyond Einstein.
| cdchn wrote:
| Thats the distinction I think between an LLM and a real
| AGI. One is a stochastic parrot, the other can come up with
| new ideas.
| kitd wrote:
| It takes a singularity to comprehend a singularity?
| af78 wrote:
| AI or not, if a machine finds an answer so complex that no
| human can understand it, how useful is it?
| rthnbgrredf wrote:
| Depends on whether we can instruct the AI to make something
| useful out of it. Today we have complex systems like CPUs
| that most humans don't understand.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Or an answer so simple: 42.
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't see that as being an important objection, because
| from the point of view of any single human... that's
| already true for the expertise found only in other humans.
|
| I don't know the chemistry necessary to turn crude oil into
| any plastic, I don't know how to use a Lagrangian, I tried
| and failed to learn group theory (I've only got the basics,
| and I'm not confident about them), and I've still only got
| a toy model of special relativity (which is supposed to be
| the easier one) -- and yet, not only are those all still
| useful, the four colour theorem is useful even though it's
| a non-surveyable proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
| surveyable_proof
| cdchn wrote:
| Abstractions are a thing. We use devices all the time that
| we don't understand entirely the workings of.
| z3phyr wrote:
| Please touch grass sir!
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _I wonder if we 've reached the limit of what a singular
| human mind can push._
|
| We passed that limit ages ago. The underlying technology used
| to do so is called "writing", which is what allows for things
| like libraries and letters / email and personal scratchpad
| notes.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Is it even scientific to claim anything about black hole
| insides? AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any
| information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or
| experiment is not possible. Any assumption can't be confirmed
| or rebuted. Basically it can't be falsified, so it's not a
| science according to Popper.
| chungy wrote:
| We can hypothesize, but there is no known way to ever test
| it. At least not with the information getting out of the
| black hole.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Without being able to test, the insides of blackholes are
| outside the realm of falsifiability and thus forever beyond
| science.
| disconcision wrote:
| > AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to
| escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is
| not possible
|
| this doesnt precisely follow. observation or experiment is
| possible from within the event horizon, although this might
| limit plausible venues for publication
| jl6 wrote:
| Publish _and_ perish.
| sliken wrote:
| No need to perish, current theories explain that the
| innermost region of a spinning black hole (all real world
| black holes spin) has a low gravity region where
| arbitrary navigation is possible. You can't escape, but
| you also don't have a death date with the singularity.
| knodi123 wrote:
| Uh... But how do you _get_ there? My understanding as a
| lay-person is that you can 't get past the event horizon
| without getting spaghettified, and cooked by high-energy
| blue-shifted radiation.
| sliken wrote:
| Getting past the event horizon of a small blackhole is
| tough, the gravitational gradient causes
| spaghetification. However larger blackholes lessen the
| gradient at the event horizon, so it's not a problem.
|
| Not sure about the inner horizon, just saw a discussion
| of the paper for a spinning black hole recently, it
| described three distinct regions.
| vikingerik wrote:
| Most lay-person discussion of black holes just ignores
| the spaghettification and radiation problems. Those don't
| really have anything to do with space-time or information
| propagation or cosmology or such, those are just
| limitations of material strength and biology.
|
| The discussion is more like, if we had infinitely
| resilient materials or biology, what could they observe
| and experience.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > what could they observe and experience
|
| Observe? Nothing, once you're inside the event horizon,
| right? The event horizon isn't a solid wall, it's just
| the point at which light can only move further inward,
| never outward. So even inside the event horizon, we still
| can't observe anything further in.
| db48x wrote:
| "Spaghettification" only happens to large enough objects
| near small enough gravitational sources. If the Moon got
| too close to the Earth, closer than the Roche Limit, then
| it would break up into a ring of debris. But a
| communications satellite can exist at that same distance
| with no ill effects.
|
| The same is true for black holes. A rocket or a human
| diving into a stellar mass non-spinning black hole would
| be "spaghettified"; they would be broken up into a thin
| stream of debris as they crossed the Roche Limit before
| they crossed the event horizon. But they could cross the
| event horizon of a much larger black hole, such as a
| supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy.
|
| In fact, if the black hole were massive enough then the
| gravitational field near the event horizon would be so
| mild as to be Earth-like. If you were to stuff all of the
| mass of three or four Milky Way-type galaxies into one
| black hole, you could build an actively-stabilized
| structure around the black hole to create a livable
| environment of truly insane proportions with Earth-normal
| gravity. Look up Birch Worlds sometime.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > you could build an actively-stabilized structure around
| the black hole to create a livable environment of truly
| insane proportions with Earth-normal gravity
|
| Which was also a rocketship into the future, moving you
| super fast towards the heat death of the universe?
| db48x wrote:
| Not exactly. Time does run more slowly near a strong
| gravitational source, and if you are near the event
| horizon of a stellar-mass black hole this effect can be
| extreme. However, the larger the black hole is, the
| flatter the space around it. Furthermore, "near" is
| relative. A Birch world would be built around a black
| hole which is approximately a light-year in diameter. The
| structure would be "near" the black hole's event horizon
| in relative terms but in absolute terms it would still be
| pretty far away, perhaps a quarter of a light year.
| Expect a time dilation of just 2:1, meaning that for
| every year on the Birch world two years pass for the rest
| of the universe.
|
| It might seem like this costs you a lot, since it halves
| the amount of time you can live near your black hole.
| However, the lifetime of that black hole will be
| somewhere between 10100 and 10106 years, which is pretty
| insane even if you only get to use half of them.
| Furthermore, this is many orders of magnitude longer than
| the lifetime of a galaxy, so your civilization could
| potentially outlive everything else in the universe.
| Large stars burn out the quickest, but with black holes
| it is the other way around: small black holes evaporate
| the soonest. You might think that storing hydrogen in
| brown dwarf planets for use in fusion reactors would
| power a civilization for a long time, but fusion reactors
| are surprisingly inefficient. A civilization built around
| a rotating supermassive black hole can take advantage of
| the Penrose process to extract more usable energy from
| the same mass than the fusion reactors would.
| squrky wrote:
| My layperson understanding is that collision with the
| singularity (if that even exists) is mathematically
| inevitable for an object that has crossed the event
| horizon. I think your scenario of hanging out within the
| event horizon and safely away from the singularity for
| indefinite time would require infinite fuel to counteract
| the gravitational gradient, or for even more fundamental
| reasons.
| ben_w wrote:
| > or for even more fundamental reasons.
|
| Even more fundamental: you'd need infinite fuel to hang
| out forever _just outside_ the event horizon -- once you
| 're inside, the direction of the singularity is "future"
| not "forwards", so you can't resist getting there with
| any form of propulsion any more than you can resist
| getting to next Thursday with any form of propulsion.
| hirsin wrote:
| This may be hopelessly naive but isn't the idea of GR
| that with sufficient fuel (and I suppose breaking some
| laws of physics) I can effectively postpone my
| experiencing next Thursday (here on earth) by moving away
| from earth at one lightsecond/second?
| ben_w wrote:
| Other way around, the more you accelerate, the less time
| you experience between now and then.
| ykonstant wrote:
| And to emphasize the above point, it doesn't matter which
| "direction" you accelerate towards; the singularity is in
| the future, and you are approaching the future faster the
| more you accelerate.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| You can orbit a black hole like any other gravity source,
| without spending fuel.
|
| I don't know how near the event horizon a safe orbit can
| be?
| idiotsecant wrote:
| That's kind of the definition of the event horizon. You
| cannot be 'safe' once you're inside. All paths lead to
| the event horizon. No matter which direction you point,
| you're pointed at it.
| lambdaxyzw wrote:
| I am not too knowledgeable about black hole physics, but
| it was my understanding that there's nothing locally
| interesting about event horizon: it's just the point of
| no return that doesn't change much for the local
| observer. Your definition of the event horizon make it
| sound more locally important.
|
| In fact, I know that as a local observer falling into a
| black hole you can still see some of the outside world
| after falling into the event horizon (by looking "behind
| you"), you just can't send anything back. This also seem
| to contradict the statement that all paths point inside
| (or I may misunderstanding something).
|
| Edit again: I did some research and it looks like that
| while parent's comment may be true for simplified model
| of a black hole, it is conjured to be possible for
| rotating black holes where you can stay inside. Also
| Google "penrose diagram kerr black hole" for some weird
| physic if you want to follow this rabbit hole. Keep in
| mind that I'm not a physicist and this is my
| understanding after 40 minutes of watching YouTube and
| Wikipedia.
| U1F984 wrote:
| I can't find anything about these low gravity regions
| (Google redirects me to your post) but they sound
| interesting. Can you share some reading material?
| jameshart wrote:
| The entry point is probably looking at how Penrose
| Diagrams describe black holes.
|
| Recent Veritasium video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M
|
| Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram
| golem14 wrote:
| I always wondered if you can orbit inside the event
| horizon of a large black hole and wait until its hawking
| radiation shrinks the event horizon so that you find
| yourself outside. You would have to wait a long time I
| guess.
| exe34 wrote:
| Cartan Null?
| card_zero wrote:
| But we can have an explanation, which can be falsified by
| arguments, without needing to directly test the inside of
| black holes with instruments.
|
| > Now my reply to instrumentalism consists in showing that
| there are profound differences between "pure" theories and
| technological computation rules, and that instrumentalism can
| give a perfect description of these rules but is quite unable
| to account for the difference between them and the theories.
|
| I _think_ that 's the right quote, Popper often lets me down
| when I want something terse and uncomplicated.
| Sakos wrote:
| This is such a weird statement. A lot of currently
| established science was only theorized during the early 20th
| century, long before we had the tools so they could be
| "proven" with real-world experiments. It was still science at
| the time.
| rthnbgrredf wrote:
| We have Hawking radiation and gravitational waves and the
| future potential to experiment with microscopic black holes
| in the lab, along with the hypothesis that Planet 9 might be
| a primordial black hole in our solar system, there is a
| wealth of opportunities to explore and learn more about black
| holes experimentally, without entering one physically.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Yes, but definitionally, none of those experiments can tell
| us anything about what is inside the black hole.
| rthnbgrredf wrote:
| Well, we have a pretty good understanding of how our sun
| works internally just by observing it from the outside,
| without ever digging a hole into it to observe it from
| the inside.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| That's because the sun emits a great deal of information.
| Black holes by definition emit none (on human time
| scales)
| thriftwy wrote:
| Yes, it is scientific. For example, Kruskal-Szekeres
| coordinates precisely describe movement inside the black
| hole.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal-Szekeres_coordinates
| csomar wrote:
| Maybe if you can create nano-blackholes and explode them
| later in a controlled fashion?
| cjfd wrote:
| It looks like they are mostly making statements about what is
| happening outside the Schwarzschild radius. These are
| testable statements.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Given our best theories we speculate what the inside of a
| black hole might be like. Of course we can't know. But that's
| how scientific things go: the cutting edge of human
| understanding is used to make predictions. Particular to the
| inside of a black hole, though, it's impossible to test what
| we see or what happens when something passes the event
| horizon. I guess unless we wait basically an eternity
| capturing all the hawking radiation to rebuild what was sent
| in...
| dotnet00 wrote:
| From my understanding, that invokes the black hole
| information paradox. There should be some way in which the
| information of what went into a black hole is retained, a
| possible answer being with the Hawking radiation.
|
| We just don't know enough about black holes to say for sure
| that the insides can not be studied in some manner. That's
| kind of why a theory of quantum gravity is so relevant,
| without it, the inaccessibility of the inside of a black hole
| remains at odds with key components of quantum physics.
|
| Eg The current theory is that black holes release Hawking
| radiation, and studying that over the lifetime of the black
| hole might reveal information about the matter that went in.
| Understanding how this information is encoded could reveal
| things about the inside. Other possible explanations are that
| near the point of evaporation, when the black hole shrinks
| down to a size where quantum effects dominate, the
| information within becomes accessible, which could again
| allow potentially studying the inside.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Using information from Hawking Radiation to understand what
| went in: while it might be possible, isn't this on the same
| practical level of unscrambling an egg? Sure we could do it
| with nanobots but is that really a possibility or just a
| mathematical curiosity?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Given the amount of mass typically involved, probably
| just a mathematical curiosity, but if that's the only way
| we can figure out to try to understand the inside, maybe
| we'll eventually be able to generate microblackholes from
| tiny amounts of matter, collect the hawking radiation and
| study those in this manner (they'd evaporate pretty
| quickly).
|
| Edit: I forgot to add in my original post that there's
| also just the possibility that the mechanism by which
| this paradox is resolved still hides the inside.
| legohead wrote:
| And the graphic on the page is the opposite of what they are
| describing...
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| No, the inner most stable orbit is just not very large which
| the graphics illustrate by the central black region around the
| black hole.
| ganzuul wrote:
| Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a
| black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the
| event horizon? Is it just semantics?
| anal_reactor wrote:
| The closer you are to the black hole the slower the time
| passes.
| pests wrote:
| Frame of reference. The object falling in experiences time as
| normal and actually falls in.
|
| From an outside observer they never cross the event horizon,
| due to the time dilation mentioned by the other comment.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > From an outside observer they never cross the event
| horizon, due to the time dilation mentioned by the other
| comment.
|
| Doesn't that imply that if we look at a black hole from a
| safe distance, the event horizon will appear to be a
| cluttered frozen motionless ring, full of all the stuff that
| is in the process of falling in but which from out point of
| view, never will?
| pests wrote:
| Almost, another detail is the closer the object gets to the
| event horizon, the more it's light redshifts - until it's
| no longer in the visible spectrum at all. You can think of
| the black hole's gravity as stealing energy from the light,
| shifting it into a lower energy spectrum.
| ghighighighilo wrote:
| I think only the last photons at the event horizon of you never
| escape the event horizon. So as you're falling toward the
| horizon you're colour shifting as the photons move slower and
| slower until you cross the event horizon at which point your
| last reflected photons outward speed matches their inward
| gravity and they freeze, balanced on the edge. You actually
| keep falling toward the singularity but no one will ever see
| you after the horizon because any reflected photons can't
| escape the gravity well.
|
| You won't actually see the frozen photons though, just the ones
| before it. Once you see them, though, the image on the horizon
| is gone.
| ben_w wrote:
| IIRC, it depends on the frame of the observer.
|
| An outsider will see in-falling objects slow down, redshift,
| and never cross the horizon; but if you're falling in, this
| happens in finite time, you don't get to see the universe
| rapidly age, the black hole doesn't evaporate from Hawking
| radiation before you reach it.
| sliken wrote:
| From the external view you never enter, just get dimmer as you
| approach the speed of light and the time dilation keeps
| increasing.
|
| From the viewpoint of the one falling in, you just fall in and
| cross the horizon without noticing.
|
| Does make you wonder if time dilation gets so extreme, could
| another black hole wonder by, offset the gravity of the black
| hole, and let you escape. Even if it takes a billion years.
| rthnbgrredf wrote:
| > Does make you wonder if time dilation gets so extreme,
| could another black hole wonder by, ... Even if it takes a
| billion years.
|
| This could even be the most likley scenario, since ultra
| massive black holes eats vast amounts of smaller over the
| course of billion years.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Once you've crossed the horizon from your point of view,
| there is no escape. If another, larger black hole passes by,
| at best you'd be within a larger event horizon comprised of
| both, I think.
| evo wrote:
| I suspect that would fall under the rule that if two black
| holes' respective event horizons ever cross, they merge and
| initiate the eventual merger of the two respective black
| holes.
| Filligree wrote:
| The time dilation does not act in that way. You will not
| experience the outside universe speeding up, at least not by
| very much; the reason for this "paradox" is primarily that
| photons coming off you take longer and longer to climb out,
| and the ones from right when you crossed the event horizon
| never will.
| willis936 wrote:
| PBS SpaceTime had a recent episode that helps with this
| apparent paradox.
|
| Really their entire playlist on black holes (and entire catalog
| for that matter) is worth a watch.
|
| https://youtu.be/Rogm_lpVZYU
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| I believe there is nothing actually inside a black hole -- to
| us, it appears as a giant sphere, where all of the matter is at
| the surface, but there is no "inside." It' s like a giant shell
| with no interior because spacetime breaks down. All matter on
| the shell is at zero distance from all the other matter on the
| shell.
| woopsn wrote:
| There is also a theory that as you approach the horizon you'll
| be incinerated by a kind of hidden firewall. This apparently
| contradicts GR - but on the other hand if you're allowed to
| fall in it seemingly contradicts QM.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Here's the paper:
| https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/531/1/366/7671518
|
| X-ray astronomers, how weird is it that they show their fits in
| physical space and not in instrument space?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-18 23:02 UTC)