r/blackholes

Hi, new here, and this is something I could probably look up but I want someone to explain it to me so I understand it better.

The scientific community largely agrees that black holes are singularities- physics defying objects that cram all their mass into an infinitesimally small point. There’s probably a very good reason they all agree on this. Why?

Neutron stars are dense enough and formed in such extreme conditions that they are made of completely homogeneous matter that is packed as tightly as physically possible. They are demonstrably able to bend light around them as it is through gravitational lensing. Conventional wisdom would suggest that a black hole is the result of a neutron star simply accruing enough mass that light simply cannot escape. Beneath the event horizon it is fundamentally the same as any other neutron star, but because of its mass no light can escape

Alas, conventional wisdom has no bearing on scientific theory. So what evidence is it that suggests that black holes are something entirely different? Something conventionally impossible?

First to clarify, I literally mean the space. Not the distance between things.

Reason its relevant: my other post, which people seem to not fully grasp my question of and theyre saying my big black hole breaks the laws of physics but I have no clue which law would be broken.. https://www.reddit.com/r/blackholes/comments/1tg7dj0/what_would_happen_if_an_extremely_big_black_hole/?sort=new

If pbject is further away from the singularity than the cosmological horizon, but still necessarily has to travel to the singularity due to being trapped int he event horizon, then 1 of 3 things must be true:

1. It travels faster than light, which is impossible.
2. The cosmos within the event horizon expands slower or doesnt expand at all
3. Both. (which is impossible)

So the only conclusion I can come up with is number 2. But is this true? Or is there another explanation for how the object would reach the singularity?

Because sure you can say "the law of black holes says it must and will reach the singularity", but that doesnt explain how that happens exactly.

So imagine

1. Extremely big black hole
2. An object is so far away that due to cosmos expansion it cannot possibly reach the black hole, even at lightspeed.
3. The black hole is so strong that its event horizon still reaches that object and consumes it.

Black hole logic says: the object must fall towards the singularity. Cosmos logic says: the object will only be further away over time, due to the rapid expansion of the cosmos inbetween the 2.

So is this a paradox or is one of my assumptions wrong?

The only "logical" thing within my assumptions that I could comeup with, is that

1. inside the horizon, time seems frozen. But does thatapply to the cosmos expansion too? If yes, it would perfectly answer my hypotheticalquestion.
2. The object should appear to be not moving, because its in the eventhorizon. But the distance of it increases with the singularity which means that the cosmos expansion should result in the object eventually being outside of the black holes horizon, in finite time for its own perspective and MAYBE also in finite time for the extra observer.

I ask the hypothetical question mostly from curiosity but also to gain a deeper understanding of the underlaying mechanics.

My idea comes from thinking about black hole mergers. If two black holes merge into a larger black hole,then conceptually their singularities merge into a larger singularity.

This made me question whether the singularity could actually be an extremely concentrated energy structure rather than simply an undefined point in spacetime equations.

In this hypothesis , photons and energy falling into the black hole continue contributing to this internal concentration of energy over time.

Therefore , black hole mergers may not only combine mass externally , but also these internal "energy singularities" into one larger unified state.

I developed this idea further in a short scientific booklet titled "The Photonic Singularity" currently available on Amazon kindle.

I am not presenting this as a replacement for accepted physics, but as a conceptual attempt to think about what singularities may physically represent beyond the current mathematical breakdown of the equations.

I would genuinely appreciate criticism, feedback, or guidance from people with more experience in relativity, black hole physics,or quantum gravity.

Time for another thought experiment. What would happen if drop each end of an indestructible rope into different black holes where one has 10x the mass of the other?

From a far-away observer’s perspective a sufficiently advanced civilization can recover every object that got within and never left, say, 100 miles of a black hole’s event horizon at any time since the black hole’s formation. This includes objects heading straight for the event horizon itself. No growth for you!

Hey Leute — kurze Frage / Gedankenspiel:

Es gibt seriöse Theorien, die vorschlagen, dass ein Schwarzes Loch in einem „Eltern‑Universum“ im Inneren kein einfaches, endgültiges Nichts sein muss, sondern eine neue, getrennte Raum‑Zeit‑Region (ein „Baby‑Universum“) erzeugen kann. Das wäre eine mögliche Mechanik für ein Multiversum: Viele Schwarze Löcher könnten jeweils eigene Universen hervorbringen.

Ich habe noch eine persönliche Variante dieser Idee: Was, wenn wir selbst in so einem „Inneren“ eines Schwarzen Lochs leben — und Schwarze Löcher im weiteren Sinn als Verbindungs‑ oder Geburtsstätten zwischen Universen fungieren? Das wäre quasi die umgekehrte Perspektive zur üblichen kosmologischen Sicht und erklärt, warum wir den „Rand“ unseres Universums nicht sehen.

Pro: Das Konzept kommt in einigen Lösungen der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie und in Ansätzen zur Quantengravitation vor, ist also nicht per se abwegig.

Contra: Es gibt bisher keine direkte Beobachtung dafür, viele Modelle sind idealisiert, und manche Versionen sind schwer testbar — deshalb bleibt es spekulativ.

Quellen zum Weiterlesen (einfach & technisch):

Populär: Artikel in Scientific American / National Geographic über Multiversen und schwarze Löcher (Suchbegriffe: “multiverse Scientific American”, “black hole cosmology National Geographic”).

Einstieg in die Forschung: Übersichtsartikel auf arXiv über “black hole cosmology” oder “black holes and the multiverse” (Suchbegriff: “arXiv black holes and the multiverse”).

Technik/Vertiefung: Fachartikel auf arXiv mit Titeln wie “Black holes and the multiverse” oder Übersichtsarbeiten zur Quantengravitation.

Habt ihr Meinungen dazu — klingt das für euch eher wie eine plausible wissenschaftliche Möglichkeit oder zu sehr nach Philosophie? Kennt jemand Arbeiten, die genau die Idee behandeln, dass unser Universum das Innere eines Schwarzen Lochs ist?