Are black holes giant atoms?
>>16959336Nö, but neutron stars kinda are.
>>16959336>Are black holes [gibberish]?No.
>>16959348>>16959346Why not?
>>16959353Define atom, its properties, and how it applies to black hole.
>>16959405no need to get so defensive lmaoso like if all the particles and shit from the the atoms are squished together inside the black hole wouldn't it be like they were all part of one big atom
>>16959336Spread your cheeks and look at the mirror
>>16959336We don't know what they are, hence the mystery. Like we just don't have a clear model for what happens to matter once gravity crosses that point. As >>16959346 said neutron stars kind of look like a giant ass Bohr atom since it's a clump of neutrons and protons which can even have a hazy electron cloud around it
>>16959336technically a transmutator, converting matter slowing into low state energy
>>16959336Yes. Both have identical structure:- Tiny dense core (~10-5 of total radius) - Vast gradient zone containing all the mass/energy- r_inner/r_s ≈ r_nucleus/r_atom ≈ 10-5The core of a black hole isn't a singularity.It's where density hits Planck limit — matter becomes information. Same as a nucleusholds the atom's identity.Not a metaphor. Geometry.
>>16959612Kill yourself, slopper faggot.
>>16959336Atoms don't have event horizons.
>>16959670well yeah, I was asking if black holes were atoms, not if atoms were black holes bruh
>>16959725black holes have event horizons, so they're not atoms
>>16959726wtf, is this a bot
>>16959727Black holes have an obligatory property that atoms do not.
>>16959729if they're really big atoms they'd act differently
>>16959736A singularity isn't really big, it is an infinitely dense point.
>>16959737singularities are dumb, makes zero sense
>>16959740Absolutely, but there is currently no better model for what's going on with a black hole.
>>16959746wouldn't it just be something like a neutron star insidethe infinetly dense shit makes no sense if there's a finite amount of stuff inside
>>16959405Well if you go with the greek definition, than ἄτομος (átomos) means indivisible which would include a black hole ad it is not. (While a nuclear atom acutally is)
>>16959405two things i dont understand are the same
>>16959640>HURR DURR THE JEWISH SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT IS HIDING THIS FROM USkys
>>16959336The shape of out universe is spherical anon
>>16959782a finite amount in an infinitely small point space is infinitely dense, look at the equation for density and take the limit as volume approaches zero (from the right)
>>16959336>Are black holes giant atoms?No
>>16959612try thinking for yourself instead of using an AI agent to come up with your stupid opinions
>>16960322Proof?
>>16959336They are because because gravity is so strong it's ripping the atoms a part. Technically, there should be a point around every Black hole that is just a infinite nuclear bomb going off, we wouldn't see it as the light is captured.
>>16961751The Universe is holographic. The architecture of atoms and blackholes are similar. But a black hole is not a giant atom.
>>16959592How often do you find yourself running into issues with "definitions"?
>>16959336Planets wander
>>16959336in string theory it's unironically the other way aroundall particles are highly extended black holes
>>16961952Cool
>Black holes have mass, spin, and charge. That's it, no other properties.Sounds like they are big electrons.
>>16961952No there isn't. Only for a very small black hole. The gravity gradient at the event horizon for stellar mass and above black holes is very gentle.
>>16963232Black holes have more properties than just mass. They are not globs of mass. They have constitutive particles like protons, neutrons, etc, all very tightly together. Its like what people imagine neutron starts are like, but just more dense. Just more dense.
>>16959336It's a giant mass of dense, so dense you can't measure it.Does it contain lots of atoms? Sure, but who knows what state they're in, being compressed past the limits of what we're capable of observing.
>>16959746string theory and quantum loop gravity both have way better and more plausible theories on what a black hole is than a singularity.
>>16965211>string theoryBunk>quantum loop gravity Maybe
>>16959612You could just say the same thing about a solar system or a galaxy. It doesn't mean anything. Yes, points that cause forces to act on things around them such that they can form orbits will resemble eachother. Who'd have thought?
>>16959336Black holes are not giant atoms. I believe they contain universes, and our universe is in a black hole. I believe that cosmological natural selection selects for this, as well as for intelligent life.
>>16965348and why is string theory bunk?>we cant test for itdoesnt mean its wrong and not an argument
>>16965211the string theory model of black holes is pretty badass. the whole thing is a "fuzzball" of tangled strings with the boundary of the fuzzball being the event horizon.
>>16965039t. Retard.Most black holes are not very dense at all. Sagittarius A* has the density of water.
>>16965642I'm not talking about the event horizon. Thats nothing special, an arbitrary line. The actual region with mass isnt some glob of mass, its subatomic particles like in a neutron star
>>16965711The interior makeup is irrelevant. The black hole itself acts like it only mass, charge, and angular momentum. Its basically a point particle with a very large mass.
>>16959487>neutron stars kind of look like a giant ass Bohr atom since it's a clump of neutrons and protons which can even have a hazy electron cloud around itcreepyGod hates the universe
>>16965782>The black hole itself acts likeOnly at a large distance, same as any mass. Yet subatomic particles still exist even in a black hole. It will never be just mass
>>16965887So what experiment lets you discern what particles are inside it?
my head canon is that the "singularity" is just reaaaaaallyy compressed matter of hadrons being squished to like planck length type compression where some weird quantum effect stops the runaway collapse of gravity from going any further. like a neutron star but just the next logical step beyond that, no schizo magic bullshit needed.
>>16965896We are talking about toy models retard, none of this shit matters. In the toy model, the black hole is composed of particles, not some glob of mass with no other properties (besides charge and angular momentum). It is true that in the model, at a long enough distance only gravity matters (and charge) so these internal structures dont matter much as far as interactions are concerned. However its important to model it. The original model of black holes relies on concepts from quantum mechanics such as pauli repulsion, required to calculate for instance its minimal viable mass.As for dumb experiments, send a particle accelerator over the event horizon and have it "probe" the black hole, you can cross it too so you can have the data (which you wont share)>>16965927>stops the runaway collapse of gravity from going any furtherThis is called time. The collapse happens, but never finishes as it needs infinite time, and time dilation makes sure it never finishes.
>>16966171In the toy model, the blackhole is literally just mass. The structural details are irrelevant.
>>16959346Can they form molecules? Maybe through magnetic or gravitation bonds instead of chemical bonds?
>>16966226there's nothing pushing them against each other, stopping them from merging like there is with atomsso unfortunately I don't think it's possible
>>16966226can i use neutron star tribromide for COOH bromination?
>>16959336why d fug not?
>>16959612thank you FagGPT
>>16966569That reaction requires black hole dioxide.
>>16959336Sure why not
I'm not reading all your comments because I am not smart enough to understand the language you all use. Have we flown a camera or probe with a massive rope or something trailing it, just to see what happens yet? We can all be theoretical but until we get hands on with this things, you scientists are just going to have to keep doing more algebra.
