Well, what exactly is inside the event horizon is unproven because we cannot possibly look. All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though, and we know that there are things out there that behave just like our models of black holes predict. It’s an incomplete understanding rather than a necessarily incorrect one. If it is something else, it’d have to be something that looks more or less exactly like a black hole to an outside observer
The comment above was about the singularity, so “the rest” clearly does not include the singularity
I don’t think “no interpretable meaning in physics” is a reasonable description, though. In classical mechanics, sure, but we’ve got plenty of physics that doesn’t work in classical mechanics
Non-classical mechanics includes things like quantum physics and (depending on who you ask) special relativity. They feel extremely counterintuitive but they provide pretty reliable explanations for how things work. That infinite density doesn’t make sense in our regular understanding of the world doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a useful model. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, of course, but the fact that it seems weird isn’t really important. It might just be that physics inside a black hole permit for something that we can best describe as infinitely dense
I would think an object of extremely high density could be difficult to distinguish from a point of infinite density, especially given the nature of the event horizon.
I’m not saying the models are definitely wrong but usually when one of your terms goes to infinity it is a good reason to be skeptical.
If the whole universe comes from the singularity and you need just a tiny fraction of it in a limited space to create a black hole, why the universe even exists and even more so, it’s expanding each day faster?
The singularity of a black hole is located in space.
The initial singularity of the big bag happened “everywhere” the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.
The mass of the black hole is finite. It’s very dense but it have a quantifiable amount of mass.
For the big bang the mass was also infinite as far as we know. Everything was singularity, every “energy” in your body was part of that infinitely large singularity. Not only everything but everywhere. Where you sit there was singularity during the big bang. As far as we know every single point in space was part of the initial singularity. We don’t come from a single point that exploded towards empty space. Expansion is more like the surface of a balloon. Maybe it’s better to think of it as stretching rather than expanding.
Beyond that we don’t know much about both, there are barriers which prevent direct observation of both.
The expansion of the universe is a completely different matter, as it’s not only expanding, it’s expanding faster that out gravitational models predict, like the universe is not only “ignoring” black holes, it’s expanding despite all observable matter, and all untraceable matter (dark matter), and it’s expanding faster and faster driven by an unknown phenomenon we call “dark energy” for giving it a name, because we have remotely not idea of what’s going on.
The theories on why are a fair bit beyond my knowledge of physics, but I do know that they’re not necessarily the same kind of singularity. Inside a black hole (assuming our models are correct), spacetime curvature goes towards infinity. At the big bang, there may not have even been spacetime as we see it in our current universe, or whatever causes the expansion of spacetime may have been so powerful that it caused the earliest spacetime to not curve despite all the gravity
Well, what exactly is inside the event horizon is unproven because we cannot possibly look. All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though, and we know that there are things out there that behave just like our models of black holes predict. It’s an incomplete understanding rather than a necessarily incorrect one. If it is something else, it’d have to be something that looks more or less exactly like a black hole to an outside observer
You know, except for the actual singularity which has no interpretable meaning in physics
The comment above was about the singularity, so “the rest” clearly does not include the singularity
I don’t think “no interpretable meaning in physics” is a reasonable description, though. In classical mechanics, sure, but we’ve got plenty of physics that doesn’t work in classical mechanics
okay what does infinite density mean in avant-garde mechanics?
Non-classical mechanics includes things like quantum physics and (depending on who you ask) special relativity. They feel extremely counterintuitive but they provide pretty reliable explanations for how things work. That infinite density doesn’t make sense in our regular understanding of the world doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a useful model. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, of course, but the fact that it seems weird isn’t really important. It might just be that physics inside a black hole permit for something that we can best describe as infinitely dense
I would think an object of extremely high density could be difficult to distinguish from a point of infinite density, especially given the nature of the event horizon.
I’m not saying the models are definitely wrong but usually when one of your terms goes to infinity it is a good reason to be skeptical.
All models are wrong. Some are useful
What is the entire problem, because all of the rest of the physics don’t get you coherent answers around a black hole.
In one, you mean? They get you perfectly fine answers around one
At the close vicinity where they don’t actually agree if it’s inside or outside.
If the whole universe comes from the singularity and you need just a tiny fraction of it in a limited space to create a black hole, why the universe even exists and even more so, it’s expanding each day faster?
Different things.
The singularity of a black hole is located in space.
The initial singularity of the big bag happened “everywhere” the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.
The mass of the black hole is finite. It’s very dense but it have a quantifiable amount of mass.
For the big bang the mass was also infinite as far as we know. Everything was singularity, every “energy” in your body was part of that infinitely large singularity. Not only everything but everywhere. Where you sit there was singularity during the big bang. As far as we know every single point in space was part of the initial singularity. We don’t come from a single point that exploded towards empty space. Expansion is more like the surface of a balloon. Maybe it’s better to think of it as stretching rather than expanding.
Beyond that we don’t know much about both, there are barriers which prevent direct observation of both.
The expansion of the universe is a completely different matter, as it’s not only expanding, it’s expanding faster that out gravitational models predict, like the universe is not only “ignoring” black holes, it’s expanding despite all observable matter, and all untraceable matter (dark matter), and it’s expanding faster and faster driven by an unknown phenomenon we call “dark energy” for giving it a name, because we have remotely not idea of what’s going on.
The theories on why are a fair bit beyond my knowledge of physics, but I do know that they’re not necessarily the same kind of singularity. Inside a black hole (assuming our models are correct), spacetime curvature goes towards infinity. At the big bang, there may not have even been spacetime as we see it in our current universe, or whatever causes the expansion of spacetime may have been so powerful that it caused the earliest spacetime to not curve despite all the gravity