What do you think is in the middle of a black hole?

[spencer60]

That's why it's a 'singularity'... usually when you start getting infinities in a theory it means you're doing something wrong, or at least your theory just doesn't apply anymore.

Personally, I think black holes are the 'source' for the only other infinitely-dense, point-like thing in Physics, the singularity that started the Big Bang.

Personally, I always had a feeling that the two are related, and a black hole is really a huge amount of our universe's mass 'punching through' to create a Big Bang in another universe or in a part of our Universe that is outside our observable range.

There used to be a theory similar to this called 'white holes', but we've never found any of those. On the other hand we can easily detect things that fit the description of black holes all around us.

To my mind the discontinuity in the theory, where it breaks down and starts giving infinite answers, is just an indication that we're not dealing with things in our particular Universe anymore.

 

[JamesG]

Like "division by zero".

 

[1776]

Hillary Clinton's soul

 

[mkdhotrod]

That's why it's a 'singularity'... usually when you start getting infinities in a theory it means you're doing something wrong, or at least your theory just doesn't apply anymore.

Personally, I think black holes are the 'source' for the only other infinitely-dense, point-like thing in Physics, the singularity that started the Big Bang.

Personally, I always had a feeling that the two are related, and a black hole is really a huge amount of our universe's mass 'punching through' to create a Big Bang in another universe or in a part of our Universe that is outside our observable range.

There used to be a theory similar to this called 'white holes', but we've never found any of those. On the other hand we can easily detect things that fit the description of black holes all around us.

To my mind the discontinuity in the theory, where it breaks down and starts giving infinite answers, is just an indication that we're not dealing with things in our particular Universe anymore.

Do you think dark matter is another universe/dimension interacting with our matter via gravity? Gravity is the only fundamental force we can't detect. versus the strong/weak/Electromagnetic

 

[JamesG]

The only fundamental force we can detect is electromagnatism, because it has macro effects (magnets!). The strong and weak forces are mathematical postulations that are needed for our atomic and particle models to work. Gravity we can detect, we just don't have a "thing" to attribute it to. It is a fundimental force because all matter exhibits it, but its not internal to the particles but a effect/impact of the mass OF those particles on spacetime.

 

[mkdhotrod]

The only fundamental force we can detect is electromagnatism, because it has macro effects (magnets!). The strong and weak forces are mathematical postulations that are needed for our atomic and particle models to work. Gravity we can detect, we just don't have a "thing" to attribute it to. It is a fundimental force because all matter exhibits it, but its not internal to the particles but a effect/impact of the mass OF those particles on spacetime.

Do you think the higgs field can give us an idea for what gravity is?

 

[DreadPirate]

The Congressional Budget.

Seriously, infinity is not a concept that sits well in my rational processes either. Even the universe has finite mass. I remember being introduced to parabolic limits in calculus and thinking, "bull@#$%." Yet people a whole lot smarter than me say its so. I still cannot wrap my mind around it. I sleep soundly at night by believing the laws of mass and energy under such a great amount of crushing force are vastly different than what we currently understand. Of course, we could just ask Maximilian Schell. He's been in one.

 

[JamesG]

Do you think the higgs field can give us an idea for what gravity is?

They say it might, but I am repelled by the current "rub-goldberg" model that Higgs had a big hand in creating. Every time they try and look deeper and/or make the equations match experimental results they have to keep adding particles or widgets to the model. That instinctively makes me think we are going down the wrong path, similar to how early astronomers had to concoct elaborate mechanisms to keep explaining an Earth-centric solar system model.

I personally think (hope?) God* isn't this sloppy. I like that there might be a brilliantly simple universal "particle" that the entire universe is made of that does everything depending on where and what it is doing, and that it puts a three (or more) dimensional "dent" in space and all those particles like to fall down into those spacetime dents to each other.

*= or whatever created the Universe.

 

[mkdhotrod]

They say it might, but I am repelled by the current "rub-goldberg" model that Higgs had a big hand in creating. Every time they try and look deeper and/or make the equations match experimental results they have to keep adding particles or widgets to the model. That instinctively makes me think we are going down the wrong path, similar to how early astronomers had to concoct elaborate mechanisms to keep explaining an Earth-centric solar system model.

I personally think (hope?) God* isn't this sloppy. I like that there might be a brilliantly simple universal "particle" that the entire universe is made of that does everything depending on where and what it is doing, and that it puts a three (or more) dimensional "dent" in space and all those particles like to fall down into those spacetime dents to each other.

*= or whatever created the Universe.

What do you think of the all time model, where all time is happening/has happened/will happen already, but we are just perceiving time as here and now. Quantum mechanics makes it seem as if particles were borrowing energy from their future state to power their now state in the pigeon hole experiment and double slit experiment.

 

[JBWJr]

Ummmmm....

Uranus?