How can scientists know what happens inside a black hole by doing maths?

Home Forums Science & tech How can scientists know what happens inside a black hole by doing maths?

  • This topic has 83 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #88996
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Someone explain me how can scientists know what happens inside a black hole by doing maths on a piece of paper.

    • #88997
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s called using a mathematical model

      • #88998
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >write numbers on a paper
        >this gives you information of places you’ve never been in

        • #88999
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yes, the universe is mathematical. Get over it.

          • #89004
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What weird to me is that most scientists don’t try to mathematically model the universe, or any part of it. They spend most of their time contemplating isolated, perfect or otherwise imaginary scenarios. Frictionless machines, perfect circles, infinite series, it just goes on and on. Engineers deal with the real world, finally, after spending a couple decades in pure imagination. But scientists generally don’t consider engineers to be scientists.
            And mathematicians look down on engineers and scientists, because they alone know the true poetry of putting numbers on imagination.

            • #89006
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >infinite series, it just goes on and on

              • #89008
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I really, really, really like this image!

            • #89009
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Uhh, yes more importance is given to mathematically simple models because they’re easier to solve. What’s weird is why you find such basic things weird.

              • #89011
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Because oversimplified models often breaks down as soon as you step outside the narrow boundaries of their assumptions. The classic examples are Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. If you get your assumptions just from a few cases of low-velocity motion on planet Earth and try to extrapolate how very fast objects should move in space, your model breaks down and you get wrong results.
                Sometimes pure math can help you predict the existence of some phenomenon (like how positrons were discovered before even being observed) but pure math can never replace empirical testing as the best way to corroborate a theory. The crux of the matter in science is the ability to predict how certain phenomena will work out, and you can only find out whether the prediction works through observation. So math alone will never replace experience.

              • #89012
                Anonymous
                Guest

                You said that the universe was mathematical, as a justification for (as OP put it) writing numbers on a sheet of paper, and then believing those numbers just told you something about places you’ve never been. Well, maybe the universe is mathematical. But that’s not where you live and do your work. You live and do your work in pure imagination land, and write your numbers about that place, and then infer ideas about reality from what you’ve done completely and deliberately divorced from reality.

                >What’s weird is why you find such basic things weird.
                Good! That means I’m questioning something you’ve not only never questioned, but never considered questionable. I am making statements that I believe to be true, but I’m not trying to make a point. I’m just kind of wondering aloud, since OP brought it up. If you can question it deeply and decide in good faith that "the way things have always been around here" is a valid approach, I’m willing to trust you on that. But I’m encouraged that you think my questioning is weird. That tells me that I’m on a right track.

                • #89069
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  […]

                  People make models woke af on empirical studies.
                  Then they use these models to guide further empirical studies.
                  Sometimes you get people making more complicated models, say model A and B and C and…. so on.
                  They want to see if different models make different predictions, and if those predictions are empirically testable.

                  But to test a lot of hypotheses, it requires very expensive and powerful instruments; like LHC, LIGO, and telescopes in space.

                  And often, people make theoretical breakthroughs, which may or may not be testable by less expensive experimental instruments

            • #89010
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >And mathematicians look down on engineers and scientists,
              Also, only morons do this.

              • #89030
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Applied mathematicians that are in the industry generally work closely with teams of engineers or scientists on various projects. Their input and math analysis can be the difference between a good project and a great project.

                Plus engineers are sis tier 🙂

          • #89016
            Anonymous
            Guest

            No it isn’t. The map is not the territory. The model is not the thing in itself.

            • #89079
              Anonymous
              Guest

              actually it is. read kant and hegel

        • #89001
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >inductive logic
          Its just a hypothesis because it has not been proven experimentally. Relax, theres zero consequences of getting black holes wrong

          • #89072
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Its deductive, not inductive.

        • #89076
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Thats how we calculate everything buddy.

    • #89000
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Black holes are not real, they are a lie. They are a story told to children. When they are grown they are taught to accept the lie of black holes. A black hole is a fictional object which eats everything. It eats light and space and time, it eats matter and energy and it doesn’t even leave a trace. It is an invisible hole into which everything falls and dies. A black hole is the ultimate liar.

      • #89021
        Anonymous
        Guest

        blackholes are very real and simple. gravity keeps scaling infinitly as mass increases but forces are finite. after a certain point (TOV limit) gravitational force becomes so strong that nothing can stop it leading to gravitational collapse. everything past this point is unknown speculation but it’s probably unlike everything in the universe, hence the intrigue with blackholes

        • #89025
          Anonymous
          Guest

          why isnt a black hole just a neutron star that light cant escape from?

          • #89027
            Anonymous
            Guest

            neutron stars don’t collapse because of degeneracy pressure pushing in the opposite direction of gravity. this force is limited, gravity will scale infinity. after a certain point gravity is so strong nothing can overcome it

            • #89031
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >degeneracy pressure force is limited
              im not clear what the difference is as the mass is obviously still there, why isnt it just a blob of neutrons, why is it assumed to be a bottomless pit?

              • #89037
                Anonymous
                Guest

                gravity pulls everything together.
                on earth normal force exerts force in the other direction preventing everything from collapsing
                on sun fusion exerts force in the other direction preventing everything from collapsing
                on neutron stars and white dwarfs there is no fusion so degeneracy forces (i.e. 2 particles can’t occupy same states) exerts force in the other direction preventing everything from collapsing
                in black holes gravity is so strong nothing can stop the collapse. hence the assumption that all matter is concentrated in a 0D single point. light can escape this because the escape velocity of a blackhole is higher than c

                • #89040
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Why is there a limit to the strength of degeneracy pressure? I know the more matter is compressed the higher is the momentum of the particles (so effectively a temperature and it goes up with further compression). Why is gravity stronger?

                  • #89043
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Why is there a limit to the strength of degeneracy pressure?
                    because the force that prevents particles from collapsing isn’t infinite
                    >I know the more matter is compressed the higher is the momentum of the particles (so effectively a temperature and it goes up with further compression)
                    we are way past this at this high gravity. here quantum mechanics dominates
                    >Why is gravity stronger?
                    bigger mass = stronger gravity

                    • #89046
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      But the force of repulsion among particles also grows. You are making handwave arguments.
                      Sure gravity is strong but the pressure caused by the uncertainty principle is also strong and gets stronger with further collapse. Why is gravity stronger? Do t just say "it is".

                      • #89047
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Why is there a limit to the strength of degeneracy pressure?
                        because the force that prevents particles from collapsing isn’t infinite
                        >I know the more matter is compressed the higher is the momentum of the particles (so effectively a temperature and it goes up with further compression)
                        we are way past this at this high gravity. here quantum mechanics dominates
                        >Why is gravity stronger?
                        bigger mass = stronger gravity

                        Truth of the matter is, we don’t know if black holes really are puntiform or not.
                        The conception of a singularity as a zero-dimension, infinitely dense mass comes from GR, which is right on a lot of things but wrong on some more.
                        That’s one of the reasons we need a unified theory of relativity and quantum physics: both alone are inadequate to model what happens at a mass so much distorted by its own gravity well.

                      • #89050
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        what force of repulsion are you talking about?
                        kinetic? irrelevant
                        electrical? this force is finite and it will not scale infinity. electrons are clearly already collapsing into the nucleus in neutron stars
                        degeneracy pressure? it will not scale infinitly, gravity scales infinitly. maybe a new phenomena happens as matter gets this dense but we don’t know. all we know is that blackholes are caused by gravitational collapse and light can’t escape it. simple as
                        think of all forces as logistic function and gravity as linear function. at some point gravity becomes stronger than everything

                      • #89052
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Degeneracy pressure. Why is it weaker than gravity?

                      • #89053
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why cant degeneracy pressure also scale to infinity? If you confine any particle to a small enough region then its momentum will shoot up boundless. Plain uncertainty.

                      • #89054
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Why cant degeneracy pressure also scale to infinity?
                        Because that hasn’t been observed.

                      • #89055
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Gravity scaling until it can compress mass to point-like hasn’t been observed either

                      • #89058
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Black holes have been.

                      • #89059
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        But we don’t know what’s actually going on beyond the horizon

                      • #89061
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        We know gravity is involved.

                      • #89062
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah, but we don’t know if at such compression, gravity will be enough to triumph over any kinf of pressure, or if degeneracy pressure still holds
                        I’m not arguing for one outcome or the other, just saying we lack both math and empirical data for an accurate prediction

                      • #89064
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #89065
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Negative mass
                        Oh ok, you are troling, thanks for the carification

                      • #89066
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Negative mass exists my plebian friend.

                      • #89067
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’ll humor you just once.
                        Cite papers and bring examples

                      • #89063
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Im asking theoretically, scrotebrain. Your evasive answers confirm you as a pseud.

                • #89042
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >hence the assumption that all matter is concentrated in a 0D single point
                  we’re getting closer to OPs point

                  • #89073
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Elsewhere, when calculations result in infinity/singularities, it is regarded as an absurdity and a sign that our understanding is incomplete. (this is part of why relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible: when combined they predict subatomic singularities EVERYWHERE)

                    For a long time, the black hole singularity was thought of the same way. Until we observed black holes through telescopes!

                    But still, since any interaction beyond the event horizon is by definition impossible, we still don’t know if a singularity is real.

                    Loop quantum gravity theorists believe that the lower limit beyond which nothing can shrink is a hard limit. As if the planck length is the "pixel size" of reality.

                    Thus a collapsing star cannot reach singularity but instead rebounds and expands.

                    Because inside an event horizon time slows almost to a halt, however, (from external perspective) we do not witness this.

                    • #89078
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >the planck length is the hard limit
                      a blob of pure energy with every ‘pixel’ set to 1.0 seems more likely than a singularity
                      >rebounds and expands in super slow motion
                      a nice concept, is it feasible we would be seeing white holes at the end of their life instead of them evaporating into nothingness?

    • #89002
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They don’t. Most physics in the modern day is scientists playing make believe in their rooms and then going out and saying some math they thought up matches their make believe wish fulfillment story. They then award each other with money for which fanfiction they think is better

      Then they go to congress and beg them for $100 billion dollars to build a giant bullshit machine so they can check to see if their OC do not steal, WIMPYCOK particle exists in real life. After everyone realizes it was a waste of money, they back track and say they really didn’t care about WIMPYCOK particles and really the OC do not steal new particle is the REAL DEAAAL.

      • #89003
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Kek, physishits btfo’d

      • #89005
        Anonymous
        Guest

        have a nice day illiterate subhuman

        • #89007
          Anonymous
          Guest

          lol you seem to have run out of arguments woke afence fan

      • #89018
        Anonymous
        Guest

        NOW THIS ONE IS FOR THE BOOKS !!!!

    • #89023
      Anonymous
      Guest

      All these smart people and nobody can answer OP’s question

    • #89024
      Anonymous
      Guest

      We use things that we can observe and are experimentally verified in order to create theories and mathematical descriptions of the world using laws of physics.
      We can then apply these laws and theories to situations we can’t get direct experimental evidence.

    • #89026
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Someone explain to me how scientists know what velocity earth is traveling by doing math on a piece of paper. Have they actually put a satellite into space with a speedometer measuring earth’s speed?!

      • #89028
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Speed is relative

        • #89029
          Anonymous
          Guest

          How did scientists figure that out by doing math on a piece of paper?!

          • #89033
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It wasnt on a piece of paper. They did experiments.

          • #89035
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Do the math and find out for yourself, if there is an inconsistency, point it out and create a revolution. But don’t sit there like a pseud and winge like a woman on this.

          • #89039
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >How did scientists figure that out by doing math on a piece of paper?!
            it’s literally common sense. if object a and object b are moving at same speed in same direction then object a is stationary to object b.

            • #89041
              Anonymous
              Guest

              But did you check this with the earth?

              • #89044
                Anonymous
                Guest

                why do you need to check that on earth? the relativity of speed means that you need a frame of reference to determine velocity. when you ask about earth’s velocity you should also say relative to what. if relative to the sun then the angular velocity is 7.29E-5 rad/s or linear velocity is 30 000m/s

                • #89045
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  So, big brain, tell me: if we are moving at 30,000 m/s, why when I’m in my car does the speedometer only go, like, 60 km/h?

                  • #89048
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    kek

    • #89049
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Wasn’t Neptune predicted mathematically before it was observed by a telescope?

      • #89051
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They tought so, but it turned out it was just your mom taking a walk

    • #89056
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #89057
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I too like pics of cute foxes sitting
        Here’s one

        • #89060
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >inb4 chris chan sonic porn

    • #89068
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So its agreed: Black holes are a meme

      glad we got to the bottom of it

      • #89071
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Eh…
        There definitely is something that matches most of the descriptions of a black hole
        Supermassive for so small a volume, black horizon, accretion disk, gravitational lensing, those are observed phenomena, at this point we’re sure of the existence of objects that match our predictions for "black holes" close enough that they might as well be
        We’re just unclear on some details is all

    • #89070
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Have you seen such a piece of paper?
      No?
      They do not exist.

    • #89074
      Anonymous
      Guest

      yeah you just assume the math on the outside works on the inside. that’s about it

    • #89075
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m no physicist but I’ve read some basic physics and some popsci stuff and they all tell me that they don’t really know how it do in there. I take the popsci narrative over your pepe post.

      • #89077
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You only discriminate against OP because he posted a Pepe.
        What if he posted Gigachad with his opinion? I think that would make it hard to refute

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id