this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
740 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

16210 readers
2306 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 85 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I'm not an astrophysicist, but that ends up being the weird perception thing about them, right? Mostly they're like a star of the same mass, and then a few will get really big and be at the center of a galaxy, but the perception is that of a natural disaster.

Big ball of plasma in the center of the solar system that will definitely eventually explode and wipe out anything left alive on any surrounding planet? NBD. An object of the same mass but it's smaller so it doesn't shine? People picture it as being more immediately violent for some reason because the "light can't escape" thing sounds so wild.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 73 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Yeah, black holes in media where they are depicted as a giant space vacuum cleaner is a big pet peave of mine. Unless you get really close, nothing is remarkable about the orbital mechanics of a black hole. The equivalent mass star would have burned you up at a much further distance than the gravity starts to become noticeably wonky.

It's a shame that writers focus so much on the gravity and neglect accretion disks and astrophysical jets which do extend large distances and are visually stunning as well.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 41 points 1 week ago (7 children)

To be fair I think "light can't escape" thing really just is that wild, it's pretty captivating. The idea of it being the death of a star, one of the most important things to all life we know about, only adds to that sense. Stars are massive billion-year explosions, yes, but they also bring warmth and light and beauty. Black holes are the death of all of that, even if it's not technically more dangerous from the same distance

[–] scintilla@beehaw.org 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Especially since we still don't know how information preservation works in a black hole. There are ideas yes but we still aren't sure if any of them are even right.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

My understanding is that the singularity is not proven to exist and many physicists believe it is an artifact of our incorrect understanding of the physics involved.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

There are no naked singularities

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 21 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Well, what exactly is inside the event horizon is unproven because we cannot possibly look. All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though, and we know that there are things out there that behave just like our models of black holes predict. It's an incomplete understanding rather than a necessarily incorrect one. If it is something else, it'd have to be something that looks more or less exactly like a black hole to an outside observer

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

All of the rest of the physics seems to check out, though

You know, except for the actual singularity which has no interpretable meaning in physics

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The comment above was about the singularity, so "the rest" clearly does not include the singularity

I don't think "no interpretable meaning in physics" is a reasonable description, though. In classical mechanics, sure, but we've got plenty of physics that doesn't work in classical mechanics

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

okay what does infinite density mean in avant-garde mechanics?

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Non-classical mechanics includes things like quantum physics and (depending on who you ask) special relativity. They feel extremely counterintuitive but they provide pretty reliable explanations for how things work. That infinite density doesn't make sense in our regular understanding of the world doesn't necessarily mean it's not a useful model. That doesn't mean it's necessarily true, of course, but the fact that it seems weird isn't really important. It might just be that physics inside a black hole permit for something that we can best describe as infinitely dense

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

All of the rest of the physics seems to check out

If the whole universe comes from the singularity and you need just a tiny fraction of it in a limited space to create a black hole, why the universe even exists and even more so, it's expanding each day faster?

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 6 days ago

The theories on why are a fair bit beyond my knowledge of physics, but I do know that they're not necessarily the same kind of singularity. Inside a black hole (assuming our models are correct), spacetime curvature goes towards infinity. At the big bang, there may not have even been spacetime as we see it in our current universe, or whatever causes the expansion of spacetime may have been so powerful that it caused the earliest spacetime to not curve despite all the gravity

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Different things.

The singularity of a black hole is located in space.

The initial singularity of the big bag happened "everywhere" the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.

The mass of the black hole is finite. It's very dense but it have a quantifiable amount of mass.

For the big bang the mass was also infinite as far as we know. Everything was singularity, every "energy" in your body was part of that infinitely large singularity. Not only everything but everywhere. Where you sit there was singularity during the big bang. As far as we know every single point in space was part of the initial singularity. We don't come from a single point that exploded towards empty space. Expansion is more like the surface of a balloon. Maybe it's better to think of it as stretching rather than expanding.

Beyond that we don't know much about both, there are barriers which prevent direct observation of both.

The expansion of the universe is a completely different matter, as it's not only expanding, it's expanding faster that out gravitational models predict, like the universe is not only "ignoring" black holes, it's expanding despite all observable matter, and all untraceable matter (dark matter), and it's expanding faster and faster driven by an unknown phenomenon we call "dark energy" for giving it a name, because we have remotely not idea of what's going on.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The initial singularity of the big bag happened “everywhere” the whole universe was supposed to have infinite density.

If the density throughout all space was truly infinite, then the volume of space had to be ZERO. Otherwise the density would have been a very very large but finite number. And if it were infinite and non-zero volume, no amount of inflation would cause it to stop being infinite. Infinity divided by any positive number is infinity.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Knuschberkeks@leminal.space 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"marauding black death wrapped in a spherical gradient of tortured space time" is a great title for a progressive rock or technical death metal song

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 43 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Tell me you don't understand black holes using a lot of words.

As far as gravity goes they are equivalent to the star that they collapsed from and just as deadly.

The difference is that you can get that much closer before "impacting" with it, but you and superman would be fucked pretty much at the same distance from it.

And I think you need a lot less than 300 writers to conjure an idea that leverage our fantasy in more and better ways.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I knew before coming into the comments there would be a pendatic with this argument

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 2 points 5 days ago

And you were right! Kudos to you!

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (9 children)

And an infinitely dense point in spacetime doesn't necessarily exist: it's just what general relativity predicts is at the center of a black hole.

The last time our physical model of the universe predicted an infinite value, we ended up discovering new physics eventually (the ultraviolet catastrophe). (Edit: ultrasound was a typo).

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 29 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I suppose cosmic horror elder gods like Cthulhu and such are not all that far removed from the idea of a black hole. Particularly the ones that are less involved with Earth than Cthulhu is. Nobody is ramming a black hole with a fishing boat. But the early writing on them was done at about the same time as a lot of the foundational theoretical work on black holes (not the earliest stuff but I can believe that the writers didn't know about it)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] radix@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Teachers: You can't divide by zero.
Nature: Hey guys, check this shit out.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

There are math models where dividing by zero makes sense. It's just that those models don't suit our world for now.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›