If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

what layers do atomic particles have?

JudgeMental said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

what layers do atomic particles have?

Electron shells is one example I can of
http://www.ewart.org.uk/science/structures/str8.htm

Tau.Neutrino said:

JudgeMental said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

what layers do atomic particles have?

Electron shells is one example I can of
http://www.ewart.org.uk/science/structures/str8.htm

and

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-structure-of-the-atom/

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

From general relativity – wait on. There are sort of layers from general relativity, the ergosphere comes to mind.

In the ergosphere, the component g_tt is negative, i.e., acts like a purely spatial metric component. Consequently, timelike or lightlike worldlines within this region must co-rotate with the inner mass. Cartesian Kerr–Schild coordinates, equatorial perspective.

Since the ergosphere is outside the event horizon, it is still possible for objects that enter that region with sufficient velocity to escape from the gravitational pull of the black hole. An object can gain energy by entering the black hole’s rotation and then escaping from it, thus taking some of the black hole’s energy with it.

Kerr-Newman, Kerr & Reissner-Nordström surfaces. The changing layers are for black holes with different ratios of mass to spin to charge.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

>>>By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

Yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

what about the Cauchy Horizon?

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

what about the Cauchy Horizon?

Thanks, i hadn’t heard of that. That definitely fits the idea of layers. This is way smaller than both event horizons.

“In physics, a Cauchy horizon is a light-like boundary of the domain of validity of a Cauchy problem (a particular boundary value problem of the theory of partial differential equations). One side of the horizon contains closed space-like geodesics and the other side contains closed time-like geodesics”

On the basis of nothing at all, other than the observation that if you look deeply enough you will find complexities and levels in everything and I expect black holes will be the same.

At the moment we cannot really examine BH very deeply at all, lots of inferring from other sources, looking at reflections to examine the actual object.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If atomic particles, planets and stars have layers, is it reasonable to assume that black holes may also have layers.?

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

He didn’t say levels. He said layers. Layers like stars and planets have.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

No.

I disagree.

By “levels” TN seems to mean structures at scales differing by many orders of magnitude.

We don’t actually know what happens inside a black hole, but there is no reason to think it doesn’t have such “levels” (and no reason to think that any of them have infinite density).

He didn’t say levels. He said layers. Layers like stars and planets have.

OK, he said layers, but I think he meant more like levels.

Perhaps he can confirm what he meant.

Either way, I still think the answer might be yes, or at least don’t know.

Also, note that I’m not saying that they definitely don’t. I am answering his question, which is about whether it is reasonable to assume that black holes have layers on the basis that stars and planets do. No, that is not a reasonable assumption.

If we take the Penrose diagram as a representation of reality, then there are an infinite number of layers within each black hole, each layer being an entire other universe. Each universe, including ours, is shown as a diamond in the following diagram.

mollwollfumble said:

If we take the Penrose diagram as a representation of reality, then there are an infinite number of layers within each black hole, each layer being an entire other universe. Each universe, including ours, is shown as a diamond in the following diagram.

What is the curvy blue line?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

If we take the Penrose diagram as a representation of reality, then there are an infinite number of layers within each black hole, each layer being an entire other universe. Each universe, including ours, is shown as a diamond in the following diagram.

What is the curvy blue line?

A test particle. Not necessarily an electron or anything so familiar, but something with position and mass.