The article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding.
It’s hidden well than.
Saved me a click.
Huh? This bit answers that imo
But I suspect that nature could very well have played a different trick altogether, and made black holes a gateway to something far more unusual – a region where the rules of spacetime themselves transform into something we’ve never seen before. Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within. Finding out whether that’s true will require peeling back the shell of reality itself. And humankind is getting closer to doing exactly that.
It’s already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.
So restating the definition of a word as a conclusion of a long essay is silly.
If the title of the essay was “An introduction to Black Holes”, it would be acceptable. But the title was click bait which poisons the reading when no payoff (new research or information) occurs.
It’s already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.
Yeah. But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.
Not that singularities are unknown to us and we’d face something unexpected, that’s obvious. What isn’t is that we might face a completely new set of physics in each different black hole.
Edit perhaps the quote was a bit on the longer side so:
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.
It’s beyond the event horizon. It’s unknown by definition. They restated the definition.
Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.
And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there’s something unknown inside an object that’s defined to be something that is unknown.
Using two paragraphs to say there’s unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.
Again if this was an essay titled, “A beginners guide to Black Holes.”, it would have been perfectly fine.
They restated the definition.
No, they didn’t. Your reading comprehension just blows.
They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.
It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.
It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”
Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?
I’m not here to prove their ideas, so getting mad at me for you disagreeing with them is… juvenile.
I’m not “defensive” in the slightest. You just feel attacked, so you’re projecting that, despite my comments being extremely neutral.
So might Deez nuts
Its candyland
Oh no!! They’re about to discover the space rabbits’ hiding place!!
