Star collapse into a black hole without a supernova | Hacker News Reader

Star collapse into a black hole without a supernova

sciencedaily.com

46 pointswglb5 comments

Fun scifi hypothesis - the only stars that don't go supernova as a part of collapse into a black hole are ones that are engineered to do so by the locals.

I think it’s all constraint based, with a black hole being an n-scale closure. So in this model, a star collapsing with no supernova is where there is simply little to no excess after the closure occurs.

I’ve a version of this that uses only local adjacency rules by which a dynamic lattice emerges. Hit me up if you want to know more, but it connects these: Fano Plane, S(5,8,24), and Golay Code, and the leech lattice

You cannot enter a black hole, they have no interior. They are pure curved space, literally an inverse of normal space.

Pi is actually not invariant in the discrete world! The continuum illusion is only intermittently tangent to the underlying discrete reality. The tick tock of the universe is a xor, local and global constraints resolve perfectly because everything is connected via perfect inviolable discrete parity on a discrete leech-like lattice, whereby shells embedded in the lattice can and must simplify to preserve parity. No ontic fields, they are but quotients on the current state at some scale. Particles are dynamic closure witnesses which can group and “propagate”. I have a simulator, but the calculation time grows so very quickly.

The discrete and “xor” parts of your comment made me think of this:

https://wolframphysics.org/

(Though I realize likely many have various objections)

I still struggle a bit with General Relativity. Understand everything is moving at a constant speed through spacetime (speed of light in a vacuum) with just the direction slightly shifting from “only along time” to the spatial dimensions.

I find it both elegant but also viscerally disturbing. Connecting time and spatial movement makes the universe seem artificial. Know it comes out from Maxwells’ equation… but it feels “wrong”.

Seems all human physical snd chemical activity is just preoccupied with transferring momentum from objects with slightly different angles of motion.

This makes sense.

We'd be seeing a lot more supernovas in the night sky if all/most stars had to go through one.

Only stars significantly bigger than the Sun go through a supernova explosion, and such big stars are a small fraction from the total number of stars.

Moreover, the rate of seeing supernovas depends both on the number of stars that can become supernovas and on the lifetime duration for such stars.

Therefore, even in a hypothetic world where all the stars could become supernovas one might see a very small number of supernovas if the lifetime of stars were great enough.

Thus the frequency of seeing supernovas is not sufficient for any conclusion, without taking in consideration the proportion of stars susceptible to become supernovas and their average lifetime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com