If a star had a black hoke at the center wouldn't it eat the star?
How long such an equilibrium can last is a different question. The paper only briefly comments on this when it says that the time scale of the numerical simulations they did is of the same order as the hydrodynamic timescale of the Sun. That means, roughly, the time it would take the Sun to collapse to a white dwarf if fusion reactions in its core stopped, which is, I believe, tens of millions of years. So a star with a black hole at the center would not have the same lifetime as an ordinary main sequence star with similar mass, but it would have a long enough lifetime that would could not conclusively rule out that at least some stars we see have black holes at their centers.
Not necessarily. That's the sort of question the paper investigates, and it finds models for which fusion can continue in the star's core for an extended period of time.
> There’s no pressurized core at the center.
Yes, there is, because, as I noted, the matter falling into the hole radiates strongly, and the radiation has pressure.
No, it's not inches, it's about 3 kilometers.
But the holes at the center of stars that the paper is talking about have tiny masses, much, much smaller than those of the stars they are inside. Their schwarzschild radius could indeed be of the order of Angstroms.
The numerical simulations in the paper go on for a time on the order of the Sun's hydrodynamic time scale, which is tens of millions of years. After that time has elapsed, yes, the star could be completely consumed by the hole.
In actuality time is frozen near one, and matter takes an infinite time to fall in, so I don't see how it could eat anything.
Nothing is actually “frozen” around a black hole, but if you accept that light cannot escape once it passes an event horizon then it follows that there must have been one final moment when light still could escape. The light that was able to escape in that final moment would reach your eyes as a “frozen” image of the object where it previously was the exact moment before gravity became too much to overcome.
And think… once we crossed the event horizon as observers ourselves (leaving a frozen image for observers behind to see), wouldn’t we see the “tracers” of images the person before us left behind every moment we move closer to the singularity? Edit: no… we never would see any light (in front of us) again by definition when crossing the horizon, duh lol.
This is my understanding: It takes an infinite time to cross the event horizon from the perspective of a distant, stationary observer, but a finite time from the perspective of the object that is actually falling towards the black hole. Once past the event horizon, reaching the singularity takes a finite amount of time from the perspective of the falling object. From the point of view of a distant external observer, time from event horizon to singularity is a meaningless question because the events inside the event horizon are causaully disconnected from the events outside of the event horizon.
Here each step takes longer than the one before it and the series does not converge, taking instead infinite time.