|
 |
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> On 7/22/2010 11:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> >> In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a
> >> plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that
> >> even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles.
> >
> > Matter/energy degenerates under such enormous gravity, forming something
> > which doesn't happen normally elsewhere. It retains certain properties
> > (such as mass) because energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but its
> > physiology may be completely different than normally.
> >
> > It's the same as what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.
> > There were no particles until later.
> >
> Based on what? Observation?
Pretty much, yes. Observation in the sense that GR has hold up pretty
well in a very large amount of different experiments (including things
like gravitation lensing and orbital measurements of the Moon).
To say that singularities can't exist you would have to demonstrate
somehow that GR stops working when matter density goes high enough (but
is still finite). AFAIK no such observation has been made, so the *simpler*
explanation at this moment is to assume that GR does hold even with
extremely high densities because it doesn't require any additional, yet
unknown, physical models.
One known physical model is simpler than one known plus one unknown
(especially when there's no experimental observation of where the latter
becomes more prominent than the former, so drawing the line between the
two is pretty much impossible).
I have always wondered why it seems that quantum mechanics is somehow
considered "holier" than general relativity. If some physical phenomenon
is predicted which seems to contradict either one or the other, or both,
then it must be GR which breaks, never the "holy" QM, which never breaks
and is always in effect no matter what the circumstances.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
