Image not available

2560x1440

Black Hole.jpg

๐Ÿงต Black Hole Go Big Boom

Anonymous No. 16195406

How do we know that Black holes don't explode like stars? What would be the ramifications if they actually do?

Anonymous No. 16195408

>>16195406

They only do when they are less than the size of a proton due Hawking radiation. However, most Black Holes will last for tens of eons long after the last star goes extinct and will not even begin to lose energy until past that time because the universe is not cold enough yet.

Anonymous No. 16195441

>>16195408
theoretically...

Once you get into theories of spinning black holes and instabilities anything becomes possible in "theory".
we haven't been observing black holes for long enough.

Anonymous No. 16195467

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

Anonymous No. 16195487

>>16195467
do you just lurk here all day waiting to post this?

Anonymous No. 16195488

>>16195406
One would assume the gravitational potential is great enough such that it would take immense amounts of energy for anything with significant "mass" to leave and, since everything follows the path of least resistance, whatever is inside stays inside, the hypothetical formation of a black hole already necessitates a gravitational collapse exceeding electron degeneracy pressure, I would think that since the electrons would get separated from everything else there would be some type of a solid type core with an extremely dense electron cloud surrounding it, such that it essentially holds everything stable, the positively charged core would want to escape and the negatively charged electrons want to get in, but there is no room, would probably explain the strong magnetic fields as well

Anonymous No. 16195572

>>16195488
>inside
How can you define what is inside a black hole when gravity itself breaks?

Anonymous No. 16195578

>>16195406
They don't explode, there isn't anything to make them explode. They are dead stars with no nuclear fusion.

Anonymous No. 16195580

>>16195467
>look mom I posted it again

Anonymous No. 16195650

>>16195572
If anything in reality was broken, then it would not work, yet it does, as such nothing can break.

Anonymous No. 16196388

>>16195650
>gravity becomes infinite
We call that being broken in the real world anon.

Anonymous No. 16196424

>>16196388
Gravity can be "infinite" because it's not a force

Anonymous No. 16196505

>>16195406
How the fuck do you want it to explode if nothing can escape it.

Anonymous No. 16196512

>>16196424
What is it then?

Image not available

555x555

555.gif

Anonymous No. 16196599

>>16196512
The probabilistic tendency for things to take a certain path in space as influenced by their local interactions, the moon falls towards the planet because of the forces acting upon it, it would take more energy to go the other way, so without external influence it takes the path of least resistance, in essence the spacetime grid model is just an approximation of energy density per area and how it influences the path which any given object would probabilistically take and gravity can be described as the degrees of freedom in momentum for some object in some area of space at some point in time, how much freedom of movement something has in a certain direction.

Anonymous No. 16196610

>>16196599
>schizophasia

Anonymous No. 16196621

>>16196610
I know big boy words are hard for you but if you're gonna bait at least put some effort in it

Anonymous No. 16196730

>>16196599
Your describing what gravity does. You're not describing what gravity is.

Anonymous No. 16196758

>>16196730
>You're not describing what gravity is.
The path of least resistance in some area of space, it's not a force rather than the resulting coordinates of forces acting on some thing

Image not available

943x311

tired eyes sad.png

Anonymous No. 16196809

>>16196758
>It's a thing
>Okay, what is the thing?
>A thing

Anonymous No. 16196831

>>16196758
Honestly, curvature of spacetime makes more sense.

Anonymous No. 16196877

>>16196809
It's just a measurement of the potential outcome of force interactions, ergo you get spacetime coordinates

Anonymous No. 16196883

>>16196831
Spacetime isn't "curved" in a sense that the spacetime metric runs down to planck length, each planck length area of spacetime has it's own degrees of freedom wherein a "particle" can move, if there are adjacent particles then the spacetime metric is affected in the sense that due to force interactions the path the particle will take will be warped, spacetime is more like a constantly warping web, with the smallest derivable unit being limited by the smallest size "object" possible, it's just a mathematical field representation of observed effects

Anonymous No. 16196938

>>16195406
because that would mean stuff would leave its event horizon which is impossible
>>16195408
Hawking radiation has to be the most pointless, irrelevant, pedantic contribution to physics ever. . Stephen Hawking was such a nerd.

Anonymous No. 16197882

>>16195406
What would happen if a black hole that formed entirely from matter collided with an equal-mass black hole that formed entirely from antimatter?

Anonymous No. 16197885

>>16195488
Why wouldn't it just be a neutron star or even some kind of quark matter at the center of the black hole?

Anonymous No. 16197911

>>16197885
Yeah you're right, it would have to be crushed beyond neutron degeneracy as well, it is really a mystery

Anonymous No. 16198145

>>16197882

Nothing. You could even make a black hole with pure concentration of photons due the mass-energy equivalence and still would be a black hole.

Image not available

1192x896

Diamond Jackson UNF.png

Anonymous No. 16198288

She's my black hole

Anonymous No. 16198547

How are black holes even real? They just break reality.

Anonymous No. 16198703

>>16197882
Youd get a more massive black hole the same as if two normal black holes merged

Anonymous No. 16198845

>>16198547
No, they don't.

Anonymous No. 16198865

>>16195572

when people say inside a black hole they mean inside the event horizon, nothing actually reaches the "singularity" because near the "singularity" space stretches at a rate faster than mass can occupy it, think of a hole that grows faster than you can throw dirt into it.

Anonymous No. 16198868

If black holes were to explode, it would suggest a cyclical model of cosmic rebirth where singularities act as quantum seeds for new universes.

Anonymous No. 16198927

>>16198865
I guess I've finally found a hole that's deep enough for my cock.

Anonymous No. 16198932

>>16195408
This entire statement is meaningless despite throwing all those fancy pop sci terms. Hell even the empty set means more than that gibberish

Anonymous No. 16199961

>>16198932
>big words that i don't understand scare me. it's not possible for me to not know something, anything someone says that i don't understand must be made up.
>t. actual toddler

Image not available

460x461

totally real blac....jpg

Anonymous No. 16199975

>>16199961