Are black holes the densest object you can get? Are there varying

>>8158551
I think this thread proves that no, a black hole is not the densest something can get.

>>8158551
>alex jones
if aliens saw him, they'd deem humans too primitive and move on to another planet

>>8158555
I understand I am not as bright as I could be but this question is genuine if it's something simple please tell me.

Yes to all 3.

Yeah because "micro" black holes or whatev

>>8158562
Black holes are infinitely dense, which is as dense as dense gets

Black holes dont exist

>>8158551
Yes, no, no. Infinity dense is dense. You cant get denser than infinity. That said, the total amount of mass in a black hole does depend on how much matter it had when it started, and also affects the event horizon and strength of gravity. So no, they can't get denser, but there are "bigger" and "smaller" black holes

if the entire universe was in a black hole how big would it be?

>>8158551
Yes
Yes
No (kind of)

File: image.png (89KB, 261x238px)

89KB, 261x238px

>>8158558
>move on to another planet
>saving the human race from the New Galactic Order designed to enslave humanity

Based Jones

File: insufficient_loom.jpg (396KB, 1570x1536px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1570x1536px

>>8158551
Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't actually understand the scientific terms you're using? That maybe all of the advanced scientific explanations you've ever heard have just been metaphors, oversimplified to the point of removing all useful information? And that, therefore, you not only lack the knowledge to answer the questions you have, but also to know what questions are even vaguely coherent?

I would strongly recommend looking into this possibility.

>>8158608
How do we know they're infinitely dense? surely theres a finite density they take?

File: 12361412_10207500684651737_737154152_n.gif (195KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 375x375px

>>8158692
>a finite density they take
Ah yes, sentient black holes that want to get "beach body ready".

>>8158692
No, without infinite density, a black hole is not a black hole, just an object.
The key idea behind black holes is that they break the laws of physics: gravity becomes so powerful that matter collapses in on itself. A white dwarf is very, very dense, because it packs a large amount of matter into a small space. Black holes are infinitely dense because they pack a large amount of matter into no space. Black holes have no volume and thus no measurable density besides infinity. Its the equivalent of dividing by zero. There is no finite density, is what I'm saying.

Not OP here. Got a question

suppose we define the laws of physics with a function f(x).

Well, in a black hole, isn't this inverse f(x), switching the domain and range creating a singularity?

>>8158551
>>/x/

They are solvent

Why relativists believe that inside center of mass gravity is higher than on surface? This makes no sense

>>8158551
Sort of, yes, sort of.

The maximum density that a region of space can have is determined by how much matter it would take to make a black hole of that size, because at that point, adding more matter would just make a larger (and less-dense) black hole. Things get a bit uncertain around the planck scale, where black holes get less like all-consuming gravity wells and more like fantastically hot exotic-particle-generators, but that's more an issue of what the terms being used really mean at those scales.

The density of a black hole is determined by its mass, since that's what determines the Schwartzchild radius at which light cannot escape. The volume grows faster than the mass, so larger black holes are less dense than smaller black holes. Supermassive black holes can have densities comparable to the normal matter around you.

The matter that went into a black hole determines its initial dimensions, but Hawking radiation causes black holes to lose mass over time. As this happens, their density increases per the above. However, except for extremely tiny black holes, Hawking radiation is too feeble to to produce measurable differences over the elapsed life of the universe.

>>8159630
>Hawking radiation causes black holes to lose mass

Only if they are warmer than the surrounding space. It will take at least 100 bn years before that happens.

>>8159642
http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

>>8158555

Don't mock someone for not knowing something. This may be obvious to someone with knowledge of physics but not everyone is like you. At least, I fucking hope so.

File: 1465171180345.png (112KB, 297x282px)

112KB, 297x282px

>>8158608
>You cant get denser than infinity.
>all infinities are the same

>>8159630
Thanks for the good answer.

File: MOST dense.jpg (157KB, 997x602px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 997x602px

>>8158562
>>8159648


>>>8158555
checked

>>8158710

>Black holes have no volume

I find that Aussie volumising shampoo and conditioner, used in combination with Schwarzkopf volumising mousse when blow drying, is a great solution for a lack of volume.