Inside Black hole

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Feb 12, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,686
    No one ever said it was. Still factually speaking, the accepted evidenced backed theories of the day, are supported by the majority.
    If there is no "valid" derivation, it is then a total dismissal. And again, many other professionals seem to disagree with you.
    I'm confusing Hawking Radiation with nothing, and as you should well know, no scientific theory is proven.
    I said even the BB has problems....no mention of any trans Plankian problem.
    Many other professionals disagree with you.
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2008.0062
    Dumb holes: analogues for black holes
    Abstract
    "The use of sonic analogues to black and white holes, called dumb or deaf holes, to understand the particle production by black holes is reviewed. The results suggest that the black hole particle production is a low-frequency and low-wavenumber process."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    I support the evidence-backed theories of the day too. My own theories have them as limits. So, accepting them as good approximations is a necessity for my own theories.
    If you read the papers themselves, you will find that they accept themselves that their arguments have some holes. They tend to think that they are, nonetheless, worth something. Here I disagree. I have yet to see the paper where a "valid derivation" of Hawking radiation is claimed which does not accept, inside, that there is no complete proof but at best some plausibility argument.
    The "suggests" already suggests that this does not mean much. Inside the article one finds my main point:
    So, all this are only arguments from analogy, not "valid derivations". So, following your own argument, this is a "total dismissal".
    You are confusing it again, Hawking radiation is a prediction derived from a theory, not a scientific theory itself. Again, I know that scientific theories cannot be proven. But empirical predictions of scientific theories can be proven to be their predictions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,686
    That's your prerogative.
    I disagree, Hawking Radiation is certainly a theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,867
    Let's say you are an angel, you can fly anywhere instantly,
    it is said that center of our milky way is a black hole, and we ask what is inside black hole?
    If this angel look at the galaxy 360 degree from north to south, east to west, couldn't he see what is inside the black hole?
     
  8. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,867
    If all mass can be compressed into a singularity in black hole, then it should violate the law of conservstion of mass.
    how can it be?
     
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,056
    Why bring an "Angel" into a discussion about black holes? How do you "see" inside a black hole? No light escapes.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,994
    I think it is reasonable to say we really dont know and probably will never know as we literally cant see anything as pointed out because no light can escape..there could be a surface just below the event horizon made of something we don't even know about yet..if your angle was able to fly past the event horizon I would not mind betting that we will find something perhaps sphere shape that may be very small or large...we only have our best theories to suggest possibilities but as I pointed out direct observation is impossible...unless we can send in an angle.
    GR suggests a singularity, which says we dont know ...but given a black hole is beyond "internal" observation I don't think your question can be answered in the way you perhaps wish...
    Alex
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,686
    Angels don't exist. And your question has been answered previously.
    This has also been explained. Once the Schwarzchild radius of any specific mass is reached, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR fails us.
    The singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, is not thought to exist.
     

Share This Page