Black hole structure

I've just red on the Internet that a black hole's mass is concentrated in a point with no volume and infinite density.

It was then stated that the appearent black volume around it is the part past the singularity where light cant escape (it kinda makes sense)

What doesn't make sense to me is how matter gets so compressed that it loses its spacial dimension.

Before reading this i thought that a black hole was just made of something like atoms put side by side by forces stronger than the repulsions between different atoms's electrons, but following this idea the black hole should have a small but surely existent volume.

So why does matter lose its spacial dimensions?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's just a popsci myth. Singularities is an error in relativity, it's not some sort of source code of the universe.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
    is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      brainlet meme

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off you imbecile moron, you keep copy pasting the same shit all the time.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. It is an "ackschully"

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It isn't concentrated to a single no-volume/infinite density. It's only in a mathematical sense. The black hole has a certain volume/density cap but it is unknown as that information resides beyond what could be measured which is the event horizon. It's physically not possible to have that much mass in a single point in Space.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Tk

      You're right. Once a star dies and can't use it's explosive fusion to hold itself up against it's own gravity, it will collapse down into a dense ball. If the force of gravity is strong enough to overcome electron repulsion, it will pack atoms together side by side, creating one giant atom. The electrons and protons of these atoms are compressed together, making them functional neutrons. It's a giant atomic nucleus made entirely of neutrons, and this is what they call a "neutron star".
      Things have spaciality because of electron repulsion, i.e. electromagnetism. When a star dies, and it is big enough, it will collapse in the exact way you describe. And yes, it will still have some spaciality because atomic nucleuses have spaciality that isn't reliant on electromagnetism like other larger objects. The spaciality of these relies on a force so much stronger than electromagnetism or gravity. It's held up by the "strong nuclear force".

      But the fact is, stars have the capacity to get so much bigger, and generate so much gravity that when they die, the inmense gravity overcomes electromagnetic force and the mighty strong nuclear force. Without those, there is simply no force keeping the matter spacially seperate. It's just energy eternally locked into place by an inward repulsion. (Well, not exactly eternal, if you look into hawking radiation.)

      I dont know anything about general relativity but i know what differential equations are, and what i heard is that the equations of general relativity have many solutions. The classical black hole is just one of them, theres also things like black holes (with the even horizon) that have distributed mass inside, with no singularity, and are as valid a solution. No one knows if any of that has to exist, its just a math problem.

      Ty for the explanation guys, i dont know much about "strong nuclear force", so i'll search it up when i finish studying today

      Anon I suggest emailing them and asking them what source they used to look past the event horizon to see what was happening in the black hole.

      When they reply that they did in fact not see past the event horizon and instead just made up a theory of what is in there, you can then suggest them to put a giant warning at the start of their article saying this is nothing but an completely made up theory.

      Until science makes some sort of massive breakthrough nobody is figuring out shit about whats inside a black hole because we cant see inside them. The funniest part about blackholes is it proves how moronic the majority of science is. Here is something we 100% cannot know and yet look how much people are out there passing off bullshit theories as proof. Its actually embarrassing.

      Even wikipedia puts in a "may" lol

      "At the centre of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite"

      I guess people are willing to spread misinformation to get more clicks (_)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Strong Nuclear force is what holds the elements together - Protons/Neutrons/Quarks, forming the core of the atoms. Though with black holes keep in mind that this force isn't relevant anymore. It all becomes a dense soup of subatomic particles or even further into energy. Fundamental forces break down at that level.

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.954439/full

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That is complete nonsense. There is only one real frame of reference, all the others are mathematical illusions. Once there is self evident that a point with no volume and infinite density is impossible.
    In the real frame of reference mass will never cross the event horizon, but another event horizon will engulf the new mass acquired by the black hole. A black hole is event horizons all the way down.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I've just red on the Internet

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're right. Once a star dies and can't use it's explosive fusion to hold itself up against it's own gravity, it will collapse down into a dense ball. If the force of gravity is strong enough to overcome electron repulsion, it will pack atoms together side by side, creating one giant atom. The electrons and protons of these atoms are compressed together, making them functional neutrons. It's a giant atomic nucleus made entirely of neutrons, and this is what they call a "neutron star".
    Things have spaciality because of electron repulsion, i.e. electromagnetism. When a star dies, and it is big enough, it will collapse in the exact way you describe. And yes, it will still have some spaciality because atomic nucleuses have spaciality that isn't reliant on electromagnetism like other larger objects. The spaciality of these relies on a force so much stronger than electromagnetism or gravity. It's held up by the "strong nuclear force".

    But the fact is, stars have the capacity to get so much bigger, and generate so much gravity that when they die, the inmense gravity overcomes electromagnetic force and the mighty strong nuclear force. Without those, there is simply no force keeping the matter spacially seperate. It's just energy eternally locked into place by an inward repulsion. (Well, not exactly eternal, if you look into hawking radiation.)

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I dont know anything about general relativity but i know what differential equations are, and what i heard is that the equations of general relativity have many solutions. The classical black hole is just one of them, theres also things like black holes (with the even horizon) that have distributed mass inside, with no singularity, and are as valid a solution. No one knows if any of that has to exist, its just a math problem.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What gets predicted by the math will heavily depend on the frame of reference you are using for the calculations. They believe there is no preferred frame of reference, however to reach that conclusion they completely disregarded the one-way speed of light. Why would the one-way speed of light automagically change to fit every frame of reference becoming faster in one direction and slower in other? All the crazy stuff can only happen when using the frame of reference of whatever is falling into the black hole, while sensible outcomes happen when using a frame of reference like the cosmic background radiation.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its long since been proved that black holes cannot possibly exist. They're a stupid century old conjecture based on zero evidence. The only people who believe in them are those who learned their physics from comic books. Nobody in the professional world believes in them save for a small handful of publicity hungry charlatans who are willing to feign belief in comic book plot devices because they were unable to get any attention for themselves doing legitimate research.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon I suggest emailing them and asking them what source they used to look past the event horizon to see what was happening in the black hole.

    When they reply that they did in fact not see past the event horizon and instead just made up a theory of what is in there, you can then suggest them to put a giant warning at the start of their article saying this is nothing but an completely made up theory.

    Until science makes some sort of massive breakthrough nobody is figuring out shit about whats inside a black hole because we cant see inside them. The funniest part about blackholes is it proves how moronic the majority of science is. Here is something we 100% cannot know and yet look how much people are out there passing off bullshit theories as proof. Its actually embarrassing.

    Even wikipedia puts in a "may" lol

    "At the centre of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Singularity theory's BTFO
      Even wikipedia mentions they are just filler bullshit until we get an actual theory.

      "The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[112] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >made up theory.
      its called a hypothesis

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The surface of the black hole contains no volume, however it has a defined non zero surface area based on its mass. It is like a sphere that has its volume short-circuited to zero.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *