<blockquote>
  <p>Can someone please explain it to me whether the M-theory can be used
  to explain what is happening in the centre of the black hole where the
  singularity exists?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Layman astronomy - yes, M-Theory (and probably a few string theories) do explain in detail what happens at the singularity, but it's a mathematical construct, not a testable hypothesis, so what it tells you might be wrong and little more than creative but irrelevant mathematics. </p>

<p>Looking inside a black hole, well, that's not a good idea either.  Even if you were able to see what happened, you wouldn't be able to send a message back telling anyone, so that's also no help.</p>

<p>Quantum physics is all a model anyway, but it's a <strong>good</strong> model because it provides accurate answers and it predicted the existence of particles that were later discovered.   Relativity is a good model too that stood up to testing.   Good models are useful and highly accurate and provide answers.  </p>

<p>M-theory is a mathematical construct.  That's a different thing entirely.   It could still end up being right, but until it's testable, it's really just a mathematical exercise.   They really shouldn't call it a theory, it should be M-Hypothesis and String-Hypothesis.  They aren't real theories.</p>

<p>If I may quote Shakespeare from Henry IV, just for fun:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>GLENDOWER</p>

<pre><code>I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
</code></pre>
  
  <p>HOTSPUR</p>

<pre><code>Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
</code></pre>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm personally much more comfortable with the "<em>both accepted theories, relativity and quantum theory, break down at the singularity, so we don't know what happens</em>".</p>

<p>If you prefer that M-Theory says what happens, preferring that answer is entirely optional, but I think the majority of people in this field are more comfortable with the we don't know answer.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-09T19:35:21.277Z
2017-06-09T19:35:21.277Z
userLTK
<p>I am a layman in astronomy. Can someone please explain it to me whether the M-theory can be used to explain what is happening in the centre of the black hole where the singularity exists? Or is it still necessary to peek inside a black hole to gain that information? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-09T16:54:13.153Z
I suspect that an M-theory description of a black hole could fill a few books, and perhaps win a Nobel. I think this makes it too broad.
James K
<fundamental-astronomy><radio-astronomy><observational-astronomy>
The M-theory to understand black holes
striker10
# The M-theory to understand black holes

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-06-09)

I am a layman in astronomy. Can someone please explain it to me whether the M-theory can be used to explain what is happening in the centre of the black hole where the singularity exists? Or is it still necessary to peek inside a black hole to gain that information?

**Tags:** fundamental-astronomy, radio-astronomy, observational-astronomy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I suspect that an M-theory description of a black hole could fill a few books, and perhaps win a Nobel. I think this makes it too broad.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-06-09. Score: 6

> Can someone please explain it to me whether the M-theory can be used
> to explain what is happening in the centre of the black hole where the
> singularity exists?

In Layman astronomy - yes, M-Theory (and probably a few string theories) do explain in detail what happens at the singularity, but it's a mathematical construct, not a testable hypothesis, so what it tells you might be wrong and little more than creative but irrelevant mathematics.

Looking inside a black hole, well, that's not a good idea either. Even if you were able to see what happened, you wouldn't be able to send a message back telling anyone, so that's also no help.

Quantum physics is all a model anyway, but it's a **good** model because it provides accurate answers and it predicted the existence of particles that were later discovered. Relativity is a good model too that stood up to testing. Good models are useful and highly accurate and provide answers.

M-theory is a mathematical construct. That's a different thing entirely. It could still end up being right, but until it's testable, it's really just a mathematical exercise. They really shouldn't call it a theory, it should be M-Hypothesis and String-Hypothesis. They aren't real theories.

If I may quote Shakespeare from Henry IV, just for fun:

> GLENDOWER
>
> ```
> I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
>
> ```
>
> HOTSPUR
>
> ```
> Why, so can I, or so can any man;
> But will they come when you do call for them?
>
> ```

I'm personally much more comfortable with the "*both accepted theories, relativity and quantum theory, break down at the singularity, so we don't know what happens*".

If you prefer that M-Theory says what happens, preferring that answer is entirely optional, but I think the majority of people in this field are more comfortable with the we don't know answer.


---

