Blackholes

[not quite yoda]

Are blackholes actually wormholes? humans may not be advanced enough to be able to tell?

Click to read more...

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Are blackholes actually wormholes? humans may not be advanced enough to be able to tell?

Yes

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Are blackholes actually wormholes? humans may not be advanced enough to be able to tell?

Strictly speaking, we don't yet know what lies inside a black hole's event horizon because no usable information can escape. Black holes do faintly emit a cold, scrambled radiation from just outside the event horizon called Hawking radiation; the temperature of the radiation is inversely proportional (to some power, I think 1/3 power or 3, something like that) to the black hole's mass. This is due to subtle quantum field effects, and it means that black holes that don't consume energy eventually will evaporate (the smaller, the quicker.)

At the moment, we have no way to probe a black hole and get a result back, you can only infer the presence of a black hole by watching its effects on nearby visible objects. Our current laws of physics inevitably break down somewhere inside the event horizon, either near or at the hypothetical singularities (of which a black hole can have several types, depending on whether it has an electric charge and whether or not it is rotating.)

Taking the simplest case (a non-rotating, uncharged black hole), our current physical framework that accurately govern any gravitational interaction not near the quantum scale, Einstein's Law of General Relativity, implies that at the center of a black hole is a non-mathematically-removable, single point of basically infinite mass, infinite density and zero volume; i.e. a point singularity. Scientists are not at all comfortable with that conjecture because such an object basically breaks math and physical reasoning, so GR is not capable of accurately describing physics at or near a black hole singularity. Simply put, those laws do not apply at those extreme scales, where quantum gravity (which we don't yet completely understand but which operates in somewhere between 5- and 26-dimensional-space) presumably dominates.

Most of these quantum gravity/string theories indicate really f***ed-up shit happens in/near a singularity. Spacetime itself might be completely warped, broken, or connected to other points in spacetime that are far, far away by normal travel. Gravity itself might leak into other dimensions. Conventional particles cannot be created for long in these extraordinary conditions because they would immediately evaporate into their own black holes, which (given their small size) would immediately decay via Hawking radiation.

Science is pretty baller sometimes.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Strictly speaking, we don't yet know what lies inside a black hole's event horizon because no usable information can escape. Black holes do faintly emit a cold, scrambled radiation from just outside the event horizon called Hawking radiation; the temperature of the radiation is inversely proportional (to some power, I think 1/3 power or 3, something like that) to the black hole's mass. This is due to subtle quantum field effects, and it means that black holes that don't consume energy eventually will evaporate (the smaller, the quicker.)

At the moment, we have no way to probe a black hole and get a result back, you can only infer the presence of a black hole by watching its effects on nearby visible objects. Our current laws of physics inevitably break down somewhere inside the event horizon, either near or at the hypothetical singularities (of which a black hole can have several types, depending on whether it has an electric charge and whether or not it is rotating.)

Taking the simplest case (a non-rotating, uncharged black hole), our current physical framework that accurately govern any gravitational interaction not near the quantum scale, Einstein's Law of General Relativity, implies that at the center of a black hole is a non-mathematically-removable, single point of basically infinite mass, infinite density and zero volume; i.e. a point singularity. Scientists are not at all comfortable with that conjecture because such an object basically breaks math and physical reasoning, so GR is not capable of accurately describing physics at or near a black hole singularity. Simply put, those laws do not apply at those extreme scales, where quantum gravity (which we don't yet completely understand but which operates in somewhere between 5- and 26-dimensional-space) presumably dominates.

Most of these quantum gravity/string theories indicate really f***ed-up shit happens in/near a singularity. Spacetime itself might be completely warped, broken, or connected to other points in spacetime that are far, far away by normal travel. Gravity itself might leak into other dimensions. Conventional particles cannot be created for long in these extraordinary conditions because they would immediately evaporate into their own black holes, which (given their small size) would immediately decay via Hawking radiation.

Science is pretty baller sometimes.

This guy definitely blackholes.

 

[Blitzkrug]

I remember there was a hypothesis where the singularity is actually like a gateway to another universe that in theory, if passed through by something in tact would result on it being spit out in another universe/timeline/whatever on the other side.

Only problem with that is a) no way to test it because a black hole traps anything and everything sucked into it and b) the raw gravitational force of the black hole tends to rip anything to shreds before even getting remotely close to the singularity