Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Is that the form matter takes at the center of a black hole? Hmmm, that would make sense but I guess it doesn't necessarily have to, as the gravitational force isn't directly dependent on the density, just the mass.
To add on, definitely not a "normal" degenerate matter, no. If there's enough mass there to form a black hole, the energy liberated from shrinking exceeds the energy needed to decrease the wavelength of the particles, and continues doing so perpetually. Doing that calculation is why we were so sure black holes must exist in the first place.
There are no accepted answers to your question. However, I like to think that string theorists have it right and matter is sort of crushed so completely that you're just left with a roiling sea of primordial energy - a scalar field, aka, a new universe. It is in my opinion likely that black holes are the holographic medium on which a universe can be projected. String theory supports this thought; it posits that black holes are "fuzz balls", aka: a mass of unimaginable energy vibrating in many dimensions, aka: a universe. It is a simple, elegant explanation for why the universe exists, and where it came from.
But that is all extremely hypothetical. Like I said, there are no answers here... yet. There's a lot of good science to back up that thought, but none of it is falsifiable with our current understanding of physics. We probably need a theory of quantum gravity to start answering these questions.
A black hole is believed to contain a singularity with all of the mass as a single point. So this is well past the point of baryonic matter and in a region where our physics models break down.
If you just take the total mass of a black hole and divide it by the volume of the Schwarzschild radius (aka event horizon) you get a density MUCH greater than a neutron star. This isn’t a useful measure of the black hole density though, since all of the mass is at a single point of presumably infinite density.
Ah, many thanks, it's been quite a while since UP2 and I honestly didn't even have a good grasp on it while I was taking the class