|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> According to GR you would need an infinite amount of energy to maintain
>>> a shape with non-zero volume. Obviously there isn't an infinite amount of
>>> energy inside a black hole.
>
>> Interestingly, according to QM, you need an infinite amount of energy if two
>> particles can be zero distance from each other. And that is *exactly* the
>> problem.
>
> I suppose the apparent contradiction won't be solved until a unified
> theory is discovered.
Or until we figure out how to make a black hole we can actually observe the
behavior of, etc. :-) I think QM is more "holy" than GR because it's very
difficult to observe the actual behavior of GR in the extreme. We have only
theories of what goes on inside a black hole's even horizon, whereas QM has
been expermentally validated to a much greater extent with actual
observations, perhaps?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |