that information can not escape a black hole sic why would that be the default position?
What do you mean by 'default position'? Do you mean why do scientists assume it to be so?that information can not escape a black hole sic why would that be the default position?
Ironically:Black holes are extremely dense pockets of matter, objects of such incredible mass and miniscule volume that they drastically warp the fabric of space-time.
-black holes are vacuum
-there is no meaningfull way to assign a volume to them
-there is no meaningfull way to assign a density to them
-there is no fabric of space-time
-they don't warp space-time, they are speciffically warped space-time
Long live pop-science!
The jets, that have actually been observed for many years, at radio wavelengths, don't come fromastronomers can see the jets of plasma that black holes spew into space,
What is your point?jbriggs444 , perhaps you didn't look at the Staff Directory
The problem I have with this is that the volume of box with the BH, treated with spacelike slices, can be infinite for perfectly reasonable slices. So you are really doing infinite - infinite equals some finite value.Do we need to make it so complicated? Make a very large box around the black hole. Consider how much volume it would have without the black hole, consider how much accessible volume it has with the black hole. Subtract. It gives a volume of the order of the Schwarzschild radius cubed. Not sure how to define the accessible volume for rotating black holes, but it gives at most a numerical prefactor.
Honestly I think sidesteping the sigularity is missing the point as the emergence of the singularity within the event horizon is considered one of the reasons we "know" GR can't be the final say as it is generally accepted that the emergence of infinities are evidence of the break down of a theory. Perhaps more importantly because no observations can emerge from within a black hole's event horizon any interpretation of what, if anything, exists inside a black hole is inheretly outside the scope of science as it can not be falsified. With the observations of M87*'s photon sphere, the distance at which light orbits the black hole and thus the closest we could ever hope to see light to a black hole, and gravitational waves produced by two black holes merging we can say that fudamentally unless indicated by some new theory of everything these observations rule out anything not observationally indistinguishable from a black hole. The question of if a Black hole is actually a hole is so far outside the fields of science.The problem I have with this is that the volume of box with the BH, treated with spacelike slices, can be infinite for perfectly reasonable slices. So you are really doing infinite - infinite equals some finite value.
Maybe my argument seems complicated, but it sidesteps this problem by going to the past, before the interior topology change.
Science may not be able to answer every detail of what a black hole is, but we can certainly put many constraints on it, and I believe that we can confidently say that a black hole is not a 'hole' in the normal sense of the word.The question of if a Black hole is actually a hole is so far outside the fields of science.
True in the familiar 3D sense at the very minimum so I guess I can agree with that but the main point I had wanted to convey was the limitations of science as much of the conversation seemed focused on the interior of a black hole. We have lots of untested hypothesizes out there and I am leery about supporting any of them acknowledging the lack of observational tests. As there is a long history of wild theorizing disconnected from observations.Science may not be able to answer every detail of what a black hole is, but we can certainly put many constraints on it, and I believe that we can confidently say that a black hole is not a 'hole' in the normal sense of the word.