You mean, if you have to meet your great love in that other galaxy and you only have the choice to take the full risk or will arrive in 2.5 Billion lightyears as a pile of bone-dust or deep-frozen while you still could study the diaries of your love after your arrival?
Pretty mean example, I know...
On a more serious note, I also find wormhole considerations quite audacious to say the least (in reality, not in games of course).
That's an interesting thought.It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.
Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star?
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.
Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
i would be heading in the opposite direction; if physics, allowed it of course.I see we have a similar perception of the world around us
That's the thing, often i feel when it comes to Astrophysics that theory and reality are often not compatible.
I never got how one could think a black hole could be seen as a Wormhole booster like those Sonic the Hedgehog Speedbumps.
It'll rip anything apart down to its molecular and atomic level. No matter can withstand the force untouched, way to much gravity and rotational force.
Unless someone comes up with a new supeglue (kidding)
Which brings me to an interesting question, if you had the free choice whether to go into a black hole or take the long way around, what would you do?
Do you trust Astrophysicists enough that you deem it safe to make the passage?
OK, maybe nuclear, is not the right word; but they still go bang. Critical mass is the key.It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.
Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star?
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.
Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
Non of the known forces in the universe could do that. We know that 17 billion suns is below that critical mass at least.
The event horizon is not based on the pulling power of a Black hole its self, (well it is sort of). The Event Horizon must be based on the possible escape velocity of the object approaching it. Therefore, the 'event horizon', is varied.That's an interesting thought.
Technically blck holes ARE basic objects. They are defined by only two quantities - mass and spin. There is of course the third, emergent property - the radius of the event horizon, but that is not a defining physical property per se.
We don't actually know whether they are singularities, though. We only know their radius is smaller than the Schwartschild radius and we only assume they are singularities from the equations that give us infinite mass/radius ratio. But they may as well be "normal objects". Maybe they are the next step from neutron stars in quantum degradation - a sort of "gluon soup" stars. Even though neutron stars are very tightly packed, they are still made of whole particles that have volume. Maybe black hole is simply on another level of packing. Maybe it's just strings themselves packed closely together.
Those 'suns' are not black holes. Black holes eat 'suns/stars, for breakfast and have amasses lots of them over time.Non of the known forces in the universe could do that. We know that 17 billion suns is below that critical mass at least.
Perhaps the critical mass is exactly one universe and it sets of a big bang?
Sorry mate. Black holes are a prime example of 'not having any free will' when encountering them.
Those suns aren't stars either. One solar mass is a unit of measurement. The biggest observed black hole is about 17 billion solar masses.
It can't really go nuclear. There are no nucleus in there, except for new arrivals.
Even in the inner regions of neutron stars, the particles are no longer bound in nuclei.
Black holes seem to go on as long as they are fed new matter. If not, they will slowly radiate away.
What happens to a black hole that radiates long enough to lose it's required mass, is an interesting question. Perhaps it pops back into a star?
I don't think the universe is old enough for anything like that to happen.
Black holes are strange to us, because they don't fit our perception of the world. We are used to thinking that stuff has volume. I reality, nothing probably has any.
A hydrogen atom is like an orange and golf ball on a football field. The rest is just space. The proton at the center is made of quarks, with mostly space between them. It wouldn't be a great surprise if we discovered that all matter is made of singularities bound by a forces in a mesh.
That would make black holes rather basic objects.
I see: We use the mass of our own Sun, as a base line to work out the mass of other objects in space. We learn new things every day. Thanks.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Even horizon is a radius where escape velocity would equal speed of light. But that just depends on the mass and the fact that this mass itself has smaller radius. That's what Schwartzchild radius is. But we don't KNOW it's a singularity. It might as well be simply an object that has actual radius. It's just smaller than the Schwartzchild radius.
Don't worry about language. None of us (that I know of) are real physicists or cosmologists. Personally I'm just a huge physics fan and all my knowledge comes from watching a lot of vids and reading popular books.
)Are you suggesting that free will makes things unpredictable? gaspsOoooh, i just had one of these wise moments (when you want to pad yourself for thinking you're real smart
I'd say, free will is what determines the difference between living organisms and material things.
Hence why it's so hard to incorporate into mathematical equasions.
Math is great for calculating the odds, and explaining (to anyone who gets it, anyways) how the world around us works.
But math often comes to its limits when it's down to explaining why Johnny went for Vanilla ice cream instead of the vegetable salad.
Um well my brain hurts who's next?Here is a pitch:
On one hand science and philosophy has shown that the Universe (that includes you) seems to be deterministic, build on a foundation of uncertainty. Once the dices have been thrown, everything follows the laws of nature. This seems to rule out free will as we know it.
On the other hand you make choices every day.
So which one is it?
Are you suggesting that free will makes things unpredictable? gasps
In that case it could be an emergent property of entropy.
Because that's what living organisms are good for - shifting entropy back and forth locally.
