Could a black hole just be a planet?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether a black hole could simply be a planet composed of incredibly dense material, with the black hole acting as its atmosphere. Participants explore the implications of this idea in relation to current scientific understanding, particularly in the context of general relativity and quantum gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a black hole could be viewed as a planetoid with a dense core, suggesting that the black hole is merely the planet's atmosphere.
  • Others argue against this notion, stating that once neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome, there is no mechanism to prevent collapse into a singularity, making the idea of a solid object within a black hole unlikely.
  • A participant notes that a singularity is not a physical entity but rather a limitation of the mathematical model used to describe black holes.
  • Some contributions reference the concept of Planck stars as a more rigorous hypothesis related to the idea of dense objects in the context of black holes, though they clarify this is more about an evolving stage in a star's life rather than a permanent planet-like object.
  • Participants emphasize the complexity of the interior of a black hole, noting that it does not have a defined center and that quantum gravitational effects are expected to play a role near the singularity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the plausibility of the idea that a black hole could be a planet. While some find the concept intriguing, others firmly reject it based on current scientific understanding, leading to multiple competing views without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on general relativity and the unresolved nature of quantum gravity, which may affect interpretations of black hole interiors and singularities.

JLemp
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Just a thought that came to me after hearing any object or material, if compressed enough, could become a singularity.
So the theory is the center of a "black hole" is nothing more than a planetoid of incredibly dense material, and the black hole is just this planet's atmosphere for lack of a better description. Thoughts?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, weirdoguy and PeroK
Astronomy news on Phys.org
No. There's nothing wrong with the concept of planetary mass black holes (one with the mass of the Earth would be about 1.5cm across). However, the point about a black hole is that there is no mechanism that can stop collapse once you overcome neutron degeneracy pressure, so you can't have a solid lump of matter in a black hole - it collapses because nothing is strong enough to stop it. Furthermore, the interior of a black hole is a complicated place - it doesn't have a center per se. The singularity (despite popular description) is not a point, but rather like a moment in time.

Note that all of the above is predicated on general relativity. At some point between here and the singularity we expect quantum gravitational effects to become apparent. Since we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity we can't say what those effects would be. Allowing planets in the core of black holes seems unlikely, though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JLemp and BillTre
JLemp said:
Summary: Just a thought that came to me after hearing any object or material, if compressed enough, could become a singularity.
A singularity is not a physical thing. It's a deficiency in the mathematical model.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cosmologyscience, BillTre, FactChecker and 2 others
JLemp said:
So the theory is the center of a "black hole" is nothing more than a planetoid of incredibly dense material, and the black hole is just this planet's atmosphere for lack of a better description. Thoughts?
Sorry to be harsh, but it makes absolutely no sense in regards to being a plausible possibility with our current understanding of science.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and malawi_glenn
No
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
People did propose something along those lines, albeit in more rigorous terms - the Planck stars:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562
At this point firmly in the hypothesis bucket, though.

(this is more like an evolving stage in a star's life, rather than a permanent planet-like object)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn and Ibix
Ibix said:
However, the point about a black hole is that there is no mechanism that can stop collapse once you overcome neutron degeneracy pressure, so you can't have a solid lump of matter in a black hole - it collapses because nothing is strong enough to stop it.
Note to OP; "neutron degeneracy pressure" is what keeps a neutron star/pulsar from collapsing if it's not quite massive enough to collapse into a black hole. That would be the "last"/densest known object that isn't a black hole.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: JLemp, pinball1970, malawi_glenn and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K