Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I just thought of this interesting thought experiment...

If two black holes were orbiting each other, and you (a human) were positioned directly at their center of gravity, such that the situation is symmetrical across a 2D plane, would they tear you apart?

And, if so, then wouldn't that situation be analogous to being in an infinite universe with no dark energy and with infinite mass scattered uniformly around it, since then in each direction there would be infinite gravity pulling you in that direction, thereby stretching you out in every direction and tearing you apart?

And, if so, isn't that oddly and remarkably similar to the way actual dark energy is actually slowly tearing the observable universe apart?

Hmm.png (69.41 KiB) Viewed 2302 times

[value]

I consider the idea 'infinite amount of ...' to be a fallacy.

Such a type of infinity is named a potential infinity or mathematical infinity and is merely endless of nature. One is philosophically obligated to explain the potential of a begin of a potential infinity and in my opinion that concept cannot be applicable to reality outside the scope of time.

The following topic about a paper by two philosophy professors provides more insights: Endless and infinite.

Officially the Singularity of Mass in black holes is considered a problem where mathematics breaks down and fails to explain reality. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

As of today it isn't known what causes gravity. It might be neutrino's.

Gravity -- a neutrino effect?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravi ... ino-effect

Gravity Emerges...From Neutrinos?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

If this were to be the case, neutrino's could be the source of both dark energy and gravity with the same mechanism (a gravitational pull effect in different directions, which would include the source of life).

A question to get further insights: can it be said that gravity is of qualitative nature? If it can be made evident that gravity requires quality, then there could be a case to seek the source within the potential of neutrino's to change their mass influence from within themselves.

In the case that you would disagree with this theory/idea. What do you believe that mass/gravity is? And how would black holes manifest 'infinite' mass (what is the theoretical origin of the idea of infinite mass)?

[Celestine Adhiambo]

Imagine an infinite universe with infinite mass distributed evenly. Now, if a black hole were to form due to local variations in density, its gravitational pull would be infinite. In this hypothetical scenario, gravity could extend infinitely, affecting all matter across the infinite expanse. The result might be a peculiar dance of cosmic forces, shaping the structure of this boundless universe in fascinating ways.

[Dominic Mose]

General relativity describes gravity on a cosmic scale, while quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. When these two theories are applied simultaneously to extremely dense regions like black hole singularities, mathematical inconsistencies arise, indicating a need for a more unified framework, often sought in theories like string theory or loop quantum gravity. However, a definitive solution to this issue is yet to be achieved, and it remains a frontier in theoretical physics.

[Sushan]

This is quite and interesting thought experiment. However I had to look through the Internet to fully grasp the idea and learn about related theories, and here are my findings.

Regarding your first question, the gravitational gradient (this is called tidal forces) could still stretch you. Black holes exhibit extreme curvature in spacetime, and the difference in gravity across even a small distance near them can cause "spaghettification" (stretching of matter due to differential gravitational pull). For supermassive black holes separated by a large distance (you have not specified the size of the black holes or the distance in between them) tidal forces might be negligible at the center. For smaller or closer black holes, the forces could still stretch and rip you apart.

Going further deep into your scenario, in an infinite universe with uniform mass distribution (with no dark energy), you wouldn't experience a net gravitational force at any point because the pulls from every direction cancel out according to Newtonian physics. However, general relativity complicates the picture: an infinite, uniform mass distribution is unstable and can lead to paradoxes.

E. g. : Olbers’ Paradox - Why the night sky isn’t infinitely bright?

Such a universe cannot exist stably within our current understanding of physics, as it would collapse under its own gravity or require some form of energy to counteract that collapse, and this is where the concept of Dark Energy comes into play.

For your final question, Dark Energy, on the other hand, works differently. It causes spacetime itself to expand, stretching the universe at large scales. But this process doesn’t directly tear apart individual objects as gravitationally bound systems resist expansion. But in an hypothetical scenario over an immense period of time, this stretching can overcome the resisting forces.

I suggest we further discuss upon your thought experiment. It is interesting as well as enlightening.

[Sushan]

I consider the idea 'infinite amount of ...' to be a fallacy.

Such a type of infinity is named a potential infinity or mathematical infinity and is merely endless of nature. One is philosophically obligated to explain the potential of a begin of a potential infinity and in my opinion that concept cannot be applicable to reality outside the scope of time.

The following topic about a paper by two philosophy professors provides more insights: Endless and infinite.

Officially the Singularity of Mass in black holes is considered a problem where mathematics breaks down and fails to explain reality. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

As of today it isn't known what causes gravity. It might be neutrino's.

Gravity -- a neutrino effect?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravi ... ino-effect

Gravity Emerges...From Neutrinos?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

If this were to be the case, neutrino's could be the source of both dark energy and gravity with the same mechanism (a gravitational pull effect in different directions, which would include the source of life).

A question to get further insights: can it be said that gravity is of qualitative nature? If it can be made evident that gravity requires quality, then there could be a case to seek the source within the potential of neutrino's to change their mass influence from within themselves.

In the case that you would disagree with this theory/idea. What do you believe that mass/gravity is? And how would black holes manifest 'infinite' mass (what is the theoretical origin of the idea of infinite mass)?

Your points are quite interesting. I am neither a physicist, nor a nerd. But aren't many theories in physics are mathematically proven way before they can be physically proven not because they are wrong but because of our technical limitations?

Namingly things like String theory, Multi verse, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity, etc. are mathematically proven, but so far has not been able to disprove or to scientifically be proven. But that does not make any of them unable to be practically (or rather theoretically) applied. What do you say?

[Sushan]

Imagine an infinite universe with infinite mass distributed evenly. Now, if a black hole were to form due to local variations in density, its gravitational pull would be infinite. In this hypothetical scenario, gravity could extend infinitely, affecting all matter across the infinite expanse. The result might be a peculiar dance of cosmic forces, shaping the structure of this boundless universe in fascinating ways.

It is a quite interesting thought, but with all due respect, I find few impractical points with the current knowledge in Physics.

According to Olbers' Paradox if the universe was infinite and uniformly filled with stars (uniform spreading of mass), the night sky would be completely bright.

Black hole formation depends on local density contrasts, but in the universe that you suggested, density would be the same everywhere. This will make the formation of black holes improbable in a perfectly homogeneous universe.

[Sushan]

General relativity describes gravity on a cosmic scale, while quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. When these two theories are applied simultaneously to extremely dense regions like black hole singularities, mathematical inconsistencies arise, indicating a need for a more unified framework, often sought in theories like string theory or loop quantum gravity. However, a definitive solution to this issue is yet to be achieved, and it remains a frontier in theoretical physics.

Quite true. While the principles of gravity are true for large objects, they are not so for small (atomic level) objects. And when it comes to Quantum Physics, that is vice versa. Let aside practical scenarios, mathematicians are yet to invent ways to combine these seemingly non-agreeing fields mathematically. And such a collaboration will give really interesting results.