(no title)
t8sr | 4 months ago
Dust clouds have those mass ranges. It’s not a galaxy-scale mass by any measure.
This thread has a lot of CS people being confident about physics.
t8sr | 4 months ago
Dust clouds have those mass ranges. It’s not a galaxy-scale mass by any measure.
This thread has a lot of CS people being confident about physics.
evanb|4 months ago
But it's really so---according to GR, black holes don't have global charges. So even if you see a star made out of baryons collapse into a black hole, once the BH settles down into a steady state you can't say it's "really" got baryons inside: the baryon number gets destroyed.
(Of course, a different model of gravity that preserves unitarity might upset this understanding.)
daxfohl|4 months ago
bbor|4 months ago
1. "The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with OTHER MATTER and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
2. "A dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy composed of ABOUT 1000 up to several billion stars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy
Darn astrophysics majors being confident about astronomy! ;)
t8sr|4 months ago
2. I missed the dwarf part, but think about what you’re arguing: the mass range of a loosely defined category (the lower bound of a few thousands is not one I’ve ever heard, btw) that has nothing to do with the paper in question. Collections of stars of any kind produce light. This doesn’t. What are you saying?
What do you think physicists do all day?
9991|4 months ago