Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the event horizon? Is it just semantics?
First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
11–20 of 105 posts
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#12Still continues to amaze me that the more they look the more they confirm Einstein. Yet we know — or strongly suspect — that at the singularity and within the BH general relativity breaks down. I hope we see a unification of GR and Quantum mechanics in my lifetime. Would be really neat
Is it even scientific to claim anything about black hole insides? AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is not possible. Any assumption can't be confirmed or rebuted. Basically it can't be falsified, so it's not a science according to Popper.
> AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is not possible
this doesnt precisely follow. observation or experiment is possible from within the event horizon, although this might limit plausible venues for publication
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#13Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the event horizon? Is it just semantics?
The closer you are to the black hole the slower the time passes.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#14Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the event horizon? Is it just semantics?
Frame of reference. The object falling in experiences time as normal and actually falls in.
From an outside observer they never cross the event horizon, due to the time dilation mentioned by the other comment.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#15Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the event horizon? Is it just semantics?
I think only the last photons at the event horizon of you never escape the event horizon. So as you're falling toward the horizon you're colour shifting as the photons move slower and slower until you cross the event horizon at which point your last reflected photons outward speed matches their inward gravity and they freeze, balanced on the edge. You actually keep falling toward the singularity but no one will ever see you after the horizon because any reflected photons can't escape the gravity well.
You won't actually see the frozen photons though, just the ones before it. Once you see them, though, the image on the horizon is gone.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it even scientific to claim anything about black hole insides? AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is not possible. Any assumption can't be confirmed or rebuted. Basically it can't be falsified, so it's not a science according to Popper.
> AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is not possible this doesnt precisely follow. observation or experiment is possible from within the event horizon, although this might limit plausible venues for publication
Publish and perish.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#17Why is it that some experts say stuff falls into the center of a black hole while others say it slows down and never passes the event horizon? Is it just semantics?
IIRC, it depends on the frame of the observer.
An outsider will see in-falling objects slow down, redshift, and never cross the horizon; but if you're falling in, this happens in finite time, you don't get to see the universe rapidly age, the black hole doesn't evaporate from Hawking radiation before you reach it.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#18Still continues to amaze me that the more they look the more they confirm Einstein. Yet we know — or strongly suspect — that at the singularity and within the BH general relativity breaks down. I hope we see a unification of GR and Quantum mechanics in my lifetime. Would be really neat
Is it even scientific to claim anything about black hole insides? AFAIU it's impossible by definition for any information to escape black hole insides. Any observation or experiment is not possible. Any assumption can't be confirmed or rebuted. Basically it can't be falsified, so it's not a science according to Popper.
But we can have an explanation, which can be falsified by arguments, without needing to directly test the inside of black holes with instruments.
> Now my reply to instrumentalism consists in showing that there are profound differences between "pure" theories and technological computation rules, and that instrumentalism can give a perfect description of these rules but is quite unable to account for the difference between them and the theories.
I think that's the right quote, Popper often lets me down when I want something terse and uncomplicated.
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#19Still continues to amaze me that the more they look the more they confirm Einstein. Yet we know — or strongly suspect — that at the singularity and within the BH general relativity breaks down. I hope we see a unification of GR and Quantum mechanics in my lifetime. Would be really neat
Not to bring the all pervasive AI topic into this discussion, but I think the best hope we have for finding that unification depends on an AI superintelligence. I wonder if we've reached the limit of what a singular human mind can push.
AI or not, if a machine finds an answer so complex that no human can understand it, how useful is it?
Re: First proof that "plunging regions" exist around black holes in space
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if we've reached the limit of what a singular human mind can push. You people are becoming zombies. Get away from your computer and interact with the world. Humans with profound intellect are producing the content that LLMs regurgitate for you.
No one mentioned LLMs. We know that there are things that computers can flat out do better than humans, because there are limits to human brains. If computers continue to grow in power, then the fact that someday there might be an AI (actual AI, not LLM) which can come up with novel solutions is totally plausible. And if we go past that point and computers continue to become more powerful, then it's likely that the A…
None of that is fact, or inevitable, or meaningful. What are "thinking capabilities", what are they made of? More RAM? A human can have more RAM, by installing it in the human's computer. More parallelism? Maybe, but that's like having more humans. More speed? It's not clear what you'd do with it, since research tends to involve interaction and the outside world has a pace of its own: sitting in a cell on amphetamines does not make you brilliant. More of some unknown component of the yet-to-be-discovered formula for intelligence? Maybe, if it even works that way, which is a massive assumption.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying "superintelligence", outside of sci-fi plots. Even there it's kind of irritating deus ex machina stuff.