Why Do Physicists Consider Black Holes Something?

[nukeman]

Hey all,

I may be way out of the ballpark here, but its something I thought about today at one of my Astronomy lectures.

How come Physicists view a black hole as "Something" rather than "Nothingness" ?

The Physics about Black holes is still some what uncertain, and we try out best to apply laws to black holes, but with a Black holes characteristics, could it not just be looked at as the opposite of something ?

Before the big bang, there was just nothingness. Well, why can't a black hole simply be...nothing?

We don't understand time, matter, light, space inside of a black hole. Well, what if nothing is in it. Something(time,matter,light,space) cannot exist inside of nothing.

Or have I drank too many redbulls today? :)

 

[mjacobsca]

Well, for one, black holes have mass. If they have mass, then they are "something". And just because photons can't escape doesn't mean that the black hole should be considered "nothing". It is a one-way mirror, but there IS something on the other side, and it weighs quite a lot.

 

[nukeman]

Thanks for your reply.

But it is relative mass... Black holes have mass in the sense that they take up space, but they do not weigh anything, or have "weight"


Am I correct, or no?

:)

 

[Chronos]

Conventionally, the singularity at the center of a black hole occupies zero space, but exerts enormous gravitational influence on nearby matter.

 

[Nabeshin]

But it is relative mass... Black holes have mass in the sense that they take up space, but they do not weigh anything, or have "weight"

What do you mean by weight? The word weight is typically used to describe the force on an object in a gravitational field. I'm not really sure how it applies to black holes, unless we're talking about having one in the Earth's gravitational field and measuring the force on it.

 

[nukeman]

What do you mean by weight? The word weight is typically used to describe the force on an object in a gravitational field. I'm not really sure how it applies to black holes, unless we're talking about having one in the Earth's gravitational field and measuring the force on it.

Oh OK, I see what you are saying.

mjacobsca said that black holes cannot be "nothing" because they have mass. And I assume he means by mass, they have a weight.

Because by mass, if a black hole has mass, it must be relative right?

Can you tell me why a black hole is something, rather than nothing?

Appreciate all your replies guys, thanks!

 

[mjacobsca]

Well, my definition of "mass" is matter. You are made up of matter. I am made up of matter. Suns are made up of matter. Neutrinos are made up of matter. Black holes have a vast concentration of matter at their center. If your definition of "something" is similar to matter, then the black hole is a "something". Otherwise, you need to start defining your terms, because you are asking vague scientific questions or vague philosophical ones, and either way, I'm having a hard time trying to understand what you are after.

If I had to describe "nothing", I would describe it as the absence of anything at all. A black hole is definitely not that. It has properties of mass, spin, and charge, exerts influence in the space around it and on the normal matter that pass by it, its effects can be seen from billions of light years away, and it can kill you. All those, to me, add up to it being something other than nothing.

 

[phinds]

And I assume he means by mass, they have a weight.
!

You seem to be not getting what Nabeshin said. Mass and weight are just not the same thing and to equate them is meaningless. Mass is a quantity that needs no external reference, but weight is only meaningful in terms of a relationship, so no, mjacobsca did NOT mean that they have weight, he meant what he said. They have mass. If you look at a mass relative to some other mass, then you can talk about its weight but to describe an object in otherwise empty space as having weight is not meaningful, as Nabeshin has already stated.