so what does count as "validated"? Physics is all about finding models that fit "good enough". In fact theres nothing you can formally prove, but just run alot of tests and see how probable it is. You can disprove theories, but not prove them (unlike maths which bases everything on a thin level of axioms).
Black holes aren't really black holes
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Nobody has ever seen an electron. Do you doubt that we understand the properties of an electron quite well? Though astrophysics still is pretty young, quite a bit moreso than most terrestrial sciences, there isn't really a limitation to how well we can constrain the properties of black holes. Even if the event horizon itself cannot be seen, the existence of an event horizon around a black hole provides a number of very specific predictions which can be tested.I guess I'll just have to not believe the level of exactness you describe. When something is unmeasurable, the best you can do is lay out a framework that fits the few observable points you have, then hope (or believe) you're correct until another data point comes up that breaks your framework. If one never shows up, it doesn't mean you're correct.
For something that is inherently unmeasurable, well, you know the arguments about that.
Lets talk about gravity.
We have a model for the effects of gravity, and we can test and validate it. We can test and validate that on earth, gravity accelerates objects @ 9.8m/s^2.(or thereabouts).
Matter of fact, all of newtonian physics is 'testable', in that we can set up physical experiments and measure their outputs to validate our models.
Not so much with what happens inside a black hole, or what might or might not be happening in the event horizon, though my mind is entirely open that there are mechanisms to test such theories. If there are, I'd love to hear about them. But, from where I sit, it seems mostly a thought simulation, rather than an empirical one.
And do I believe we understand the properties of an electron quite well? I believe we understand the properties we can measure, and that they fit into our models reasonably well. Do we know their innards, what makes them do what they do? Not so much.
Another piece of science I've always been suspicious of was the periodic table's correctness. There's too many exceptions, etc. with regard to the rules of how elements combine to make me 100% sure that it is the simplest solution possible and that we're not missing some piece of input that makes the solution complete.
Congratulations on stating the problem of induction?I guess I'll just have to not believe the level of exactness you describe. When something is unmeasurable, the best you can do is lay out a framework that fits the few observable points you have, then hope (or believe) you're correct until another data point comes up that breaks your framework. If one never shows up, it doesn't mean you're correct.
For something that is inherently unmeasurable, well, you know the arguments about that.
Blazkowicz
Legend
that's tricky. they have no innards, they just are?
thats exactly the point, it depends on where you test. you will get slightly different values on the north-pole than on the equator, if you measure precise enough, its dependend even on the position of the moon. Its not impossible that there is more to general gravity than the formulas we know - they just work well enough to describe it.
Thats what I mean its "good enough", you cant say with certainity it will be the same as your model typically is limited (to the variables you know and can change in your tests). its a far cry from a dedcutive proof, though it will stay valid until a more exhaustive theorie is found.
You cant get to black holes and do some tests on them, but you still can observe their behaviour and make up theories why they behave as they do.
Why are you feeding the troll? You can troll up any science thread by restating the problem of induction. It's easy. There are just some times when it's easier than others, and theoretical physics is one of them. The other easy one is evolution.
Ah, I see.
When I question the certainty of humanities knowlege of what goes on inside a black hole, I'm a troll.
Delightful. Glad to see the 'scientific mind' isn't dogmatic or anything like that.
Next thing I'll be shot for casting disparate glances at the theory of super-strings.
When I question the certainty of humanities knowlege of what goes on inside a black hole, I'm a troll.
Delightful. Glad to see the 'scientific mind' isn't dogmatic or anything like that.
Next thing I'll be shot for casting disparate glances at the theory of super-strings.
We don't know yet. According to GR, anything inside the event horizon is inexorably drawn towards a singularity at the center. But we expect quantum gravity to change this somehow so that no singularity actually forms. Not yet knowing the appropriate theory of quantum gravity, we can't right now say much of anything about the black hole inside the event horizon.
However, I suspect that we can be highly confident with current knowledge up to the event horizon for all but the smallest of black holes (where quantum gravity effects should become important, for example if black holes are produced at the LHC).
There are a bunch of rather rigid mathematical theorems, using rather not so hard to believe assumptions to setup the existence of a blackhole horizon.
On the experimental side, solar system tests of GR are quite ironclad. As you go to galactic scales, it loses some of its precision. However, since one of the main components of solar system GR is the study of the Schwarschild metric, its rather difficult to *not* believe in blackholes, since its just part of the parameter space of that solution. Further, you are quite constrained in being able to modify the kinematics, and in general the modifications tend to look GR like in some limit when things aren't fluctuating too violently.
Moreover their existence is taken for granted in quite a disparate number of astrophysics calculations and models, ranging from interstellar medium dynamics, to galaxy formation, etc etc. Eg its very hard in this day and age, to postulate their nonexistance, at least in so far as their gross macroscopic properties. YOu are going up against quite a vast array of experiments.
On the experimental side, solar system tests of GR are quite ironclad. As you go to galactic scales, it loses some of its precision. However, since one of the main components of solar system GR is the study of the Schwarschild metric, its rather difficult to *not* believe in blackholes, since its just part of the parameter space of that solution. Further, you are quite constrained in being able to modify the kinematics, and in general the modifications tend to look GR like in some limit when things aren't fluctuating too violently.
Moreover their existence is taken for granted in quite a disparate number of astrophysics calculations and models, ranging from interstellar medium dynamics, to galaxy formation, etc etc. Eg its very hard in this day and age, to postulate their nonexistance, at least in so far as their gross macroscopic properties. YOu are going up against quite a vast array of experiments.
I don't think anybody is questioning their existence, but that we know with the certainty expressed above what's going on inside.
You can't always know what is going on "inside" of something, and the question treads close to the idea of "what something really is" which is a meaningless question (which Einstein himself claimed)
Science builds models of things. That's all we can do. When our models fit observable data very well and no contradicting evidence is found, we tend to believe in the ability of those models to make predictions. We also look at the model itself for explanatory power, but that is secondary to the model's ability to make predictions.
For example, quantum mechanics makes great predictions, but it's explanatory power is limited, not the least of which is because there are a cornicopia of different interpretations of the model which are experimentally indistinguishable.
It could very well be the case that we will never be able to know "what really goes on behind the event horizon". We may be able construct models which constrain macroscopically what happens and holistically explain the future behavior of holes much the way we explained gasses, but whether singularities exist? You may never be able to rule them out. I could claim that all matter and energy that falls into a hole turns into Pink Elephants marching about the singularity, but over time, the elephants tire, and convert themselves into Hawking Radiation.
The same goes for stuff like "what's an electron made of?" For all we know, it's made of nothing but itself, hell, the question is kinda meaningless when you consider the idea that particles themselves are somewhat of an abstraction based on our intuitive notions of macroscopic behavior.
So for me, the question of "what goes on inside of an electron" is somewhat similar to the question of what goes on inside the event horizon. If the internal microstates of a black hole don't matter to its predictable external behavior, then I'm happy to treat a black hole as just a very large single particle.
It only makes sense to use reductionism and talk about the internal states of something if that information can be used to successfully predict it's behavior, otherwise, it's mathematical masturbation for no gain.
Science builds models of things. That's all we can do. When our models fit observable data very well and no contradicting evidence is found, we tend to believe in the ability of those models to make predictions. We also look at the model itself for explanatory power, but that is secondary to the model's ability to make predictions.
For example, quantum mechanics makes great predictions, but it's explanatory power is limited, not the least of which is because there are a cornicopia of different interpretations of the model which are experimentally indistinguishable.
It could very well be the case that we will never be able to know "what really goes on behind the event horizon". We may be able construct models which constrain macroscopically what happens and holistically explain the future behavior of holes much the way we explained gasses, but whether singularities exist? You may never be able to rule them out. I could claim that all matter and energy that falls into a hole turns into Pink Elephants marching about the singularity, but over time, the elephants tire, and convert themselves into Hawking Radiation.
The same goes for stuff like "what's an electron made of?" For all we know, it's made of nothing but itself, hell, the question is kinda meaningless when you consider the idea that particles themselves are somewhat of an abstraction based on our intuitive notions of macroscopic behavior.
So for me, the question of "what goes on inside of an electron" is somewhat similar to the question of what goes on inside the event horizon. If the internal microstates of a black hole don't matter to its predictable external behavior, then I'm happy to treat a black hole as just a very large single particle.
It only makes sense to use reductionism and talk about the internal states of something if that information can be used to successfully predict it's behavior, otherwise, it's mathematical masturbation for no gain.
Troll.
