Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
You've pretty much got it with our current understandings Alex. The event horizon is the point at which the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. This means that anything that approaches the event horizon doesn't so much fall into the blackness as much as slowly reddens and fades away. This happens more so with smaller black holes than super massive ones as the gravitational gradient is larger in smaller ones that bigger ones.
What is on the other side of the event horizon is still a guess. The most well accepted theory is that of a singularity which is a point in space of infinite density. Think of everything inside the event horizon being squashed being crushed into a volume smaller than a quark or an electron. A single point of infinite mass and density.
The problem is that we don't really know what happens on the other side of the event horizon so there is every chance that there is another kind of degenerate matter that we're not aware of that stops total collapse. White Dwarfs are held against collapse from electrons not willing to get too close. Once there is too much gravity they're pushed closer together and eventually it is the unwillingness of neutrons to get too close (Neutron Stars). Maybe there is a quark degenerate matter that? Who knows.
|
Thank you Colin.
Your approach I find much less dogmatic than many others who insist the only thing that can be found is an infinitely small singularity.
I sometimes think that such a position must be maintained to support the notion of the big bang simgularity.
I will never accept such a singularity as hypothisised by the big bang theory could grow to all that we can observe in our observable universe and presumably much much more in an instant. ..I know inflation has a time allocated but it is so short that saying inflation happened in an instant really hits the nail on its head.
I do think inflation is one of those ideas that has been unseasonably accepted for no other reason than it saved the big bang theory from rejection.
I doubt if most folk understand the proposition inflation requires that we accept.
All that is ..everything became what is in an instant ..all the stars all the galaxies absolutely everything rompressed to the size of a grapefruit and in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second grows to all there is..I mean think of that for a moment..culd you visualise such just for the Earth..I cant..I teally think math has led folk to think magic is possible if you can provide a formula..
The initial observation that the universe was expanding and therefore could be taken back to a point (the singularity) was absolutely incorrect and yet it was that observation that gave support to the cosmic egg notion..a notion of interest to the church for some years prior to our priest mate coming up with the big bang model...I expect because it was simply one more pagan idea available for theft and himted at cteation something near and dear to folk who believe in a creator.
From all I can see it seems like the idea was formed and then science was called upon for support.
Science should not be done that way.
And what a nice idea that appears to deal with creation but when pressed on that issue those who know what the theory says and does not say happily point out that the theory does not cover creation but only the evolution of the universe. We are told this is the start of time but no the theory does not mention creation ..sure take us back to a split second before this creation like event and say oh we cant comment upon that...and so folk then say the universe was created from nothing..what could you think at that point..mmm a creator for most... but the theory does not take us to describe nothing as a starting point..the theory does not say such.it takes us to a something..a hot dense something but clearly not to nothing..never mentioned. .wbere does the nothimg idea come in if not from a pre conception of a need for a cteation point and imdeed a creator. ..and yet even your top flight physicists discuss how it could come from nothing..quantum fluctuations etc..but the theory only takes us to a point of a hot dense something...not nothing..
Folk grab at nothing only because of a disposition to seeking a creation point.
For me as there was something I dont see how folk conclude that hot dense something could have been interpreted as coming from nothing.
But this is dangerous stuff to think about as it goes against what we are told to think.
And how strange that to even suggest an alternative cosmology would see a career in science destroyed. ..try presenting an alternative cosmology and see how your science career goes.
My view is the universe is eternal but that does not suit folk who need a creation event. ..
We observe the universe is flat which means it must be very very big and that means that this very very big universe had an extraordinary growth spurt...flat suggests infinite and infinite suggests eternal which must exclude a cteation point and a creator...so thats got 90% of the world off side but my approach is appealing to me because it seems more rational than believing everything appeared instantaneously.
Alex
Thouhg I don't look forward to shopping for a new bed to suit.
