These stories about black holes always strike me as inconsistent with stories about the BBT "beginning" of our universe.
The whole picture would make a lot more sense if the material inside a black hole does not really get compressed to a zero dimension, and the universe oscillates density instead of having originated at a single point and "inflated" from there.
The theorists try to get away from talking about singularities in the BBT by saying that they don't know what happens below the Planck size for the whole universe. So, why can't the same theorists simply say that they don't know what happens below the Planck size for the mass in a black hole? Shouldn't that make them equally "happy" or "unhappy" in both cases?
Frankly, it makes me unhappy in both cases.
But, because we do not know what matter does in such extremely dense conditions, we really don't have a way to "show" that matter reached a point of infinite density in either case. We simply cannot observe what it does. We only have the extrapolations by sub-atomic particle physicists, using their theories. Which they will only admit break down at Planck size.
But, why not consider that they might break down at much less dense conditions?
Another area of comment is the often stated hope that we will someday learn about the insides of black holes from observations of gravity waves. But, just like light, our theories say that gravity waves will not propagate faster than light propagates. So, no information should be coming out of black holes via gravity waves, either.
Actually, if the mass that goes into a black hole actually "leaves" via a white hole "somewhere else", I don't think current theory would let us know that, either. The information of its departure should still not make it past the inside of the event horizon, right?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram