graph function singularities exist as physical features in our world
Do they, though…?
As I (mis?)understand it, as a massive star begins to collapse, getting denser and denser, the gravitational gradient gets steeper and steeper… and time (from the perspective of an outside observer) gets slower and slower… to the point that, from our point of view, the full collapse (or maybe even any collapse below the Schwarzschild radius?) hasn’t happened yet, and won’t happen until the extremely distant future, beyond the end of the universe…
So, in that sense, from the point of view of “our world”, no singularities (except possibly the big bang) would ever exist (yet), all of them being censored not only by event horizons, but by being shoved into the perpetually far future, beyond time itself…
And, speaking about event horizons, isn’t the whole “light isn’t fast enough to escape” concept a misinterpretation of sorts…? As I (again mis?)understand it, it’s not a matter of speed, but of geometry… The way space-time is twisted in such a gravitational gradient, once you get past the event horizon there are no longer any directions pointing towards the outside.
Which is another from of cosmic censorship (or a different effect or interpretation of the above), preventing anything inside the event horizon from causally interacting with the outside universe…
So, if these singularities are hidden beyond sight, causally, visually, and geometrically isolated from the rest of the universe, and perpetually shoved into the far future… can they really be said to exist in our world…?
(Of course there’s always the big bang, but we can’t really observe that one, only its effects, and it’s not necessarily exactly what the original post was talking about anyway…)
I think you explain it pretty well, but one thing to add. Due to the General Relativity and thus spacetime it is actually not directions that all point toward the singularity, but as soon as you cross the event horizon all of your future becomes the Singularity, not as a point in space, but a point in time
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/lightcone.html
This points at that, you would also need to be able to travel faster than light and that would make you time travel backwards in time
all of your future becomes the Singularity
There is some small burn-off Hawking radiation that escapes and gradually reduces the mass (and information content) of the black hole. Some of that would be you.
Fun fact: the big bang was not a singularity.
thinking about the universe is already traumatizing
Where does it end? How are we floating? What if we fall? Where does it come from?
I don’t think about that a lot so it doesn’t give me anxiety
I’m not an astrophysicist, but that ends up being the weird perception thing about them, right? Mostly they’re like a star of the same mass, and then a few will get really big and be at the center of a galaxy, but the perception is that of a natural disaster.
Big ball of plasma in the center of the solar system that will definitely eventually explode and wipe out anything left alive on any surrounding planet? NBD. An object of the same mass but it’s smaller so it doesn’t shine? People picture it as being more immediately violent for some reason because the “light can’t escape” thing sounds so wild.
They are like stars in the sense of orbital mechanics.
But a star can be completely understood by the laws of physics we know. While a black hole breaks our understanding and we have no idea what’s going on in there.
It’s the fear of the unknown.
Pop sci-fi seems to be fond of intermediate-mass black holes (EG Interstellar, Star Trek StrangeNew Worlds), and for something kinda the size of a star, they are “scary.”
In other instances (like in TV Foundation), a close orbit to the accretion disk is a source of suspense.
And then there’s the “stealth” aspect. Stellar-mass ones and below are very small and (potentially) quiet for something with the mass of a star, eg easy to stumble upon.
And in some very advanced universes (eg the online Orion’s Arm), even with “hard” sci fi, swimming through a star’s nuclear plasma is totally doable. But a black hole is an impossible boundry of physics, and an particularly extreme object useful for astroengineering.
Yeah, black holes in media where they are depicted as a giant space vacuum cleaner is a big pet peave of mine. Unless you get really close, nothing is remarkable about the orbital mechanics of a black hole. The equivalent mass star would have burned you up at a much further distance than the gravity starts to become noticeably wonky.
It’s a shame that writers focus so much on the gravity and neglect accretion disks and astrophysical jets which do extend large distances and are visually stunning as well.
If we ever invent FTL someone is gonna make a black hole bomb.
It’s already invented, just put enough mass in too little space. Don’t need a star like mass, any will do if you can compress it enough.
You don’t need much mass to simulate a black hole
Big ball of plasma in the center of the solar system that will definitely eventually explode and wipe out anything left alive on any surrounding planet?
The sun isn’t heavy enough to go supernova. (Unless it has a companion, but there’s no evidence of one so far.)
It will still expand and shed enough stuff to effectively blanch whatever part of the solar system it doesn’t actually engulf, though.
It doesn’t even have to go supernova to kill everything, which is kind of the point.
My understanding is that the singularity is not proven to exist and many physicists believe it is an artifact of our incorrect understanding of the physics involved.
Teachers: You can’t divide by zero.
Nature: Hey guys, check this shit out.There are math models where dividing by zero makes sense. It’s just that those models don’t suit our world for now.
Just FYI Superman has survived a black hole because the plot demanded it.
Now get this: some scientists think black holes might have hair.
The CW flash can escape from a black hole
GOOD point
He bathes in the black sun
