A non-answer? A nothing answer.That is what I always joke with my friends! I always pun them by saying, that "I exist nowhere, thus, I exist everywhere!"
As if a quark has no dimension?
A non-answer? A nothing answer.That is what I always joke with my friends! I always pun them by saying, that "I exist nowhere, thus, I exist everywhere!"
As if a quark has no dimension?
A 'string' end on is a 'point'. A wormhole end on in space is point to a point. You can circumnavigate a point, like a blackhole, and not find the corridor, the tube, the wormhole, the blackhole exit way (essentially a single-sided 2-dimensional frame), or in another dimensionality, the blue-white hole entry way (again, single-sided 2-dimensional frame). Two mirror-opposed single-sided 2-dimensional frames (one of the relatively large universe and slow to go; one of the relatively small universe and fast to go, so blue-white hot it is here one instant and gone the next (a quantum field fluctuation)). The two, in their infinities across spaces and over times, exactly matched.Let's go!
You got me in the first part, then you lose your point: this is without doubt something strange, infinity in not possible to describe, but if you want to put it in this way, that's ok. Math teaches us: no matter how infinity is, if you want to subtract infinity to infinity you can have zero as well as infinity (the result won't be clear...). For this reason you can't compare Black Holes with an infinite density.
Certainly, why not? This is only a theory after all...
"they can't have any dimension" one hundred per cent. I have an idea about it, given that they are the strangest things in the Universe and someways resemble the Big Bang, they don't have neither space dimensions, nor time dimensions (this is something I believe). They have mass though. According to math, all the numbers divided by zero give infinity. We remember that density is given by the ratio between mass (in this case a random nunmber) and volume. (zero), this is possible.
Of course, you're right. Maybe is better if I finish to say things I can't explain.
" And recently, finally, finally, I am now starting to read about other astrophysicists who are also questioning the "Big Bang" theory."I too happen to believe that the universe is and always has been and always will be...always and forever expanding. That's my opinion. I'm also going to say that I am not convinced there ever was a "Big Bang". And recently, finally, finally, I am now starting to read about other astrophysicists who are also questioning the "Big Bang" theory. Gee whiz. All they had to do was ask me.
A rotating black hole event horizon can approach but never attain the universal spped limit (of, say, light in vacuum). But that has nothing to do with infalling particles or the known general relativistic solutions to rotating black holes [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric ].Practically, as aprticles spiral in to a black hole, they pick up angular velocity and therfore mass as their angular velocity approaches the speed of light. When their angular velocity reaches the spead of light, their mass becomes infinite and therefor they can not spiral in any deeper as that woeld require more than infinite energy.
A black hole emit a (mostly weak) Hawking radiation that has nothing to do with the jet emission.On a side note. ***I have often found it curious that so many hold the position that BH's don't emit light, but it is evident that they do when we observe the accretion disk and the polar jets of a BH.***
Black holes aren't "black", they emit Hawking faint radiation. But the reason why we don't call them stars is because they are not but need special treatment [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ].But a “black hole star”doesn’t meet the “star” criteria whether the old or new definition. Stars have color and black isn’t a color.
The evidence of their existence gave the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 [ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/ ].I don't think black holes exist.
That isn't the big bang theory, and the universe hasn't been thought of it like that for a century. The old big bang theory - nowadays the inflationary hit big bang theory - is that space expands everywhere. The universe hasn't a well defined center - it is too large for that - and the start of the hot big bang was a moment in time and not a place in space.Why must we believe there was some solid ball of whatever then suddenly "big bang"?
Not locally, that is forbidden by relativity. If you look at large enough volumes, sure you can say that opposite edges expand faster, but that means little. (It is mostly connected to the physics of the size of the observable universe.)Faster than light Physics occurs even in the present-day Universe,
A black hole can't be "a universe" since a universe has no boundary but a black hole has (its event horizon). And our universe isn't rotating or being able to crunch - the background radiation spectra tells us both these things.The infinite Universe of the Big Crunch Vortex
Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?
I'm really sorry, I tried to read it three times but I don't know what do you want to tell me.A 'string' end on is a 'point'. A wormhole end on in space is point to a point. You can circumnavigate a point, like a blackhole, and not find the corridor, the tube, the wormhole, the blackhole exit way (essentially a single-sided 2-dimensional frame), or in another dimensionality, the blue-white hole entry way (again, single-sided 2-dimensional frame). Two mirror-opposed single-sided 2-dimensional frames (one of the relatively large universe and slow to go; one of the relatively small universe and fast to go, so blue-white hot it is here one instant and gone the next (a quantum field fluctuation)). The two, in their infinities across spaces and over times, exactly matched.
Nono. Describing the position of a point is something, describing the form and the value of the same point is something else. In a two-dimensional Universe, indeed, we must describe the position of a point only using two dimensions. In a four-dimensional Universe, four.Einstein said it takes three dimensions to "describe" a point. A point of relativity, so to speak. He did not say a point has no dimension(s) of its own. He did not say it was not a dimension in its own right if and when it [gains] in dimensionality-- such as becoming a four-dimensionality with any gain of three dimensions.
Of course. This is possible only because of two inportant vision of this aspect: Firstly, the points that build the geometrical space are infinities, secondly, according to my previous speech, we have the possibility to represent the position of a point in all the dimensions of the Universe where it is conteined.A point infinitesimal has infinite dimensionality. An infinity of point infinitesimals can define an infinity of finite, local, universes (alternatively an infinity of multiverses (multi-dimensionalities)). "Infinite" recognizes "finite" only as "infinitesimal point(s)," just as "finite" only recognizes "infinite" as boundaryless "potential" of infinite or infinitesimal, or infinity (plural).
This is very difficult to follow, but if I understood something, is that you think the Universe resembles the concept of infinity that, in turn, is everything even if the concept itself is strange. Anyways, I agree, but only up to a certain point: I don't think we can match the concept of infinity with the Universe.A binary '0' is no decimal '0'. In extended base system 0-9 is (base) 10. In decimal, of course, 1-10 is 10. Of course at base, base 2 is binary (0 and/or 1). So 0-point does not mean nothing-point. Nor does it mean everything-point. '0-point' center of an infinite Universe is every infinitesimal 0-point of an infinity of such everywhere to the infinite Universe. They do not add to, they do not subtract from, the infinite. They are superposition correlative. They co-exist. As what they are, in total they are never gained nor lost to the infinite. As to the infinity of finite(s), the finite of gain (+) is superposition correlative with the finite of loss (-) for net '0' gain, net '0' loss. The infinite Universe (U) loses nothing and gains nothing. Being infinitely dense massive it is ultimately decelerative to the max, being in no way energetic; therefore, it is timeless. The infinity of finite universes (u) lose everything... and gain everything (superposition correlative), for a net of '0' gain, '0' loss. Losing everything and gaining everything, though, they are as energetic as it is possible to be. Only in total of their infinity -- the infinity of point infinitesimals (the other side of the coin of infinite Universe; its own mirror to infinity) -- are they timeless.
I agree!They, blackholes, just take a little longer (well, relatively speaking, a lot longer) than the Planck level blue-white holes (totaled, the timelessly constant entity of the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?') to come and go. In the Cosmos of All a balance of nature(s) is ultimately maintained: Will always be maintained.
If you have a formula like this: Density=mass/volume, we would surely have an infinite density if the volume was zero.BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?
Yes...Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.
Cat
What you said above doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Therefore it can't be explained. No wonder your confusion.BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?
Yes, but I guess I myself got the answer to my question, the blackhole has infinite density only at point zero, but it has finite density at other parts. And, as always, Cat is correct.What you said above doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Therefore it can't be explained. No wonder your confusion.
Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.
Cat
I don't know what is your "mathematical obfuscation" and what does it mean , but if I know something is that Universe is ruled by physics, and physics is math. Thus, we can't say math rules have no effects if this is what you mean...Vincen,
I believe a singularity is just a mathematical obfuscation, so I have no problem.
Cat
Wow, happy birthday Cat!My change in style is because it is my 82nd Birthday today, so I am being a little frivolous with my nomenclature. It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.
Funny"What's good for the goose is good for the gander".
LOLIt is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.
Happy Birthday.My change in style is because it is my 82nd Birthday today, so I am being a little frivolous with my nomenclature. It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.
Cat
I believe you missed the point of my statements. I am not debating whether or not Hawking Radiation is weak. I am simply stating that current theoretical positions that nothing can escape a BH are based on unconfirmed mathematical suppositions that are rooted in constants that can not possibly hold true due to the tremendous energies associated with a BH. The accretion disk and polar jets are assumed to be the result of all of the massive energies at the edge of the BH.A rotating black hole event horizon can approach but never attain the universal spped limit (of, say, light in vacuum). But that has nothing to do with infalling particles or the known general relativistic solutions to rotating black holes [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric ].
Note, by the way, that the potential innermost singularity has little to do with the solution problems further out.
A black hole emit a (mostly weak) Hawking radiation that has nothing to do with the jet emission.
I covered that in another comment. There are two mass flows from the accretion disk, one into the black hole which disappears (and only show up as black hole mass increase), the other is the plasma that is fed into supermassive black hole jets by way of magnetic fields.
The recent measurements of the accretion disk polarization effects by the Event Horizon Telescope seems to confirm this, and gets that about half the total mass flow goes into the black hole and at most half into the jets [ https://aasnova.org/2021/03/24/event-horizon-telescope-traces-magnetic-fields-around-a-black-hole/ ].
Black holes aren't "black", they emit Hawking faint radiation. But the reason why we don't call them stars is because they are not but need special treatment [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ].
The evidence of their existence gave the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 [ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/ ].
That isn't the big bang theory, and the universe hasn't been thought of it like that for a century. The old big bang theory - nowadays the inflationary hit big bang theory - is that space expands everywhere. The universe hasn't a well defined center - it is too large for that - and the start of the hot big bang was a moment in time and not a place in space.
That big bang was "an explosion" is the oldest and most erroneous myth about cosmology there is [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/02/06/the-top-5-myths-you-probably-believe-about-the-big-bang/ ].
We should not belive in observed facts byu accept them based on the evidence. Big bang is such a fact [see that link for some of the evidence].
Not locally, that is forbidden by relativity. If you look at large enough volumes, sure you can say that opposite edges expand faster, but that means little. (It is mostly connected to the physics of the size of the observable universe.)
A black hole can't be "a universe" since a universe has no boundary but a black hole has (its event horizon). And our universe isn't rotating or being able to crunch - the background radiation spectra tells us both these things.
Thank you. 82 today! CatHappy Birthday, Cat!
-Wolf sends
The Earth is smaller than a pinprick in our universe alone. We view our universe through the prism of that smaller than a pinprick object and the fact that the Earth's gravity, the solar system's gravity, the Milky Way's gravity and a lot more, both discernable and not, does things to the our ability to observe our own universe.... well, we'll never really know all that much concerning it until we are out there and truly traveling around in it, if even then. It, our own universe, is both broader and deeper than our views of it. It is only the finite local, relatively broad, plane of it we observe, not its (would be to us) dense mass depth of planes coming at us here, everywhere here is, from a collapsed horizon of an infinity (we cannot possibly observe). It is my view that the [infinite] Universe transforms that non-local infinity (though it remains that non-local infinity) to local physical uses.... to even local observations and physics we observe and experience within our local universe.There is so much we don't understand about the Universe, and that goes more for other universes we are just accepting may exist. In my 57 years I have watched the scientific repeatedly reverse itself as some new discovery or some new approach to mathematics was discovered. Just to be clear, I am not trying to debate String Theory. I am just stating that mankind often approaches problems, situations, and solutions with a predetermined biases based upon what we think we understand. I am just postulating that BH's are probably beyond our current ability to understand and closing our minds to the possibility that as a species we have the ability to close that gap before our inevitable extinction is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for that understanding. I'm just saying that currently it is beyond us as a species.