On 26 September 2014 08:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > The singularity is an inference from general relativity extrapolated to > arbitrarily short distances and high densities...where it cannot apply > because it's not consistent with quantum mechanics. When your equation > predicts a singularity, it just means you've gone beyond the domain of > applicability of the equation. There's no singularity prior to the Big > Bang and there's no singularity at the center of a black hole. > > Yes. It seems unlikely that nature allow infinite curvature, infinite density and so on.
However, there are definitely massive objects around the universe, which according to general relativity have event horizons around them (a less contentious claim than there being singularities inside them). These objects certainly walk and cluck like black holes, unless some unknown effect prevents them collapsing to the point where an EH forms they will be like them to any external observers - the article claims that EHs don't form, but that the star in question explodes. As I asked before, wouldn't that cause a huge emission of energy above what's observed from supernovae? Also the article doesn't say anything about supermassive BHs, I think? Anyway, has anyone with the relevant physics knowledge examined the original articles? arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 and arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
