# If no singularity, what’s inside a big black hole?

by jimgraber
Tags: black, hole, inside, singularity, what’s
 P: 216 The Black Hole is an object with a maximum entropy for a given mass of the object. Each particle is entangled with a number of non-local information on a longest distance = a circle of the object / Compton wavelength = [2 pi R / (h/mc)] in an object with a radius R and the whole mass M. How many bits of the information may contain M/m particles with an average mass "m" in a Black Hole where M=c^2 R /2G (M/m) [2 pi R / (h/mc)] = pi R^2 / (hG/c^3 ) = A /4 lp^2 Where A is a surface of the Event Horizon of the Black Hole and lp^2 is Planck length squared. It is interesting, that the information capacity of the Black Hole increases not with its volume but with its surface. Therefore the average density of the Black Hole Like Object decreases if the mass of the object increases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics
 P: 4,512 It would be very satisfying, if at some time in the not too distant future, discussions of black holes did not contain meaningless temporal verbage. The word "is" is the current tense of the verb "to be". "Will be" is the future tense the verb "to be", ect. The use of such key words in general relativity, and even special relativity, should be specified with clarity or a declarative statement about black holes is so perfectly ambiguous it could mean a number of different things to diffenent readers. If you wish to discuss back holes, you-all should be aware that the verbs "is", "was", "will be", "never was", "never will be", etcetera are not physically meaningful without greater specification nor universally understood within your own personal gestalt. spacetime is not flat.
 P: 136 "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." — Terry Pratchet Why there should be something is a very tough question.
P: 8
 Quote by Bernie G "Why there should be something is a very tough question.
With saturday night logic (where time and space are curved a lot) it might be postulated: when space becomes gravitationally curved enough, then you will observe time like one of "normal" dimensions, while some "ordinary" dimension behaves somewhat similar to "normal" time.
So, could we turn the question back like that: why should something be there in the future and/or past?
(? Après nous la ...)
 P: 136 Minor correction to the above: The core density of a resulting black hole is about 20 times the core density of a neutron star, and the core pressure of the black hole is about 50 times the core pressure of a neutron star (of a few solar masses). Shouldn't do calculations in my head. Doesn't change anything; if you can accept the densities and pressures in a neutron star, these densities/pressures are also imaginable. The biggest weird thing is that if a neutron star collapses to about 3/8 its size (in terms of radius), the resulting star is 25% smaller than the Schwarzchild radius and nothing can escape unless 2 equal size black holes merge.
 P: 136 Final tweaking: I think a thin neutron crust is unlikely since that would probably require a temperature gradient. Also, if the core is very large (a more likely density profile) the gravitational energy energy could be as low as (4GM^2)/(5R), resulting in a star radius of only (1.2GM)/(c^2) instead of R = (1.5GM)/(c^2). Bottom line is a non-rotating star of relativistic material would have a radius between 60 - 75% of the Schwarzchild radius, which with the bulging effect should be enough for a massive ejection to occur if two approximately equal size orbiting black holes merge. This also presents a different possible “origin” of our universe other than the big bang. Consider if two massive orbiting black holes merged, with each approximately half the mass of the universe. They would eject relativistic material for millions of years.
P: 8
One possible bet is, there might be just an indetermined state (like future) because "normal" time is meshed up with other dimensions. It is fun to think about this at least.
If so, it's probably even more fun to build a ring around an extra large black hole (large enough, so the gravitation on the edge is affordable). Now, let's sit on this ring and push a mirror inside with a stick, beyond the event horizon ... OK, OK, let's just look at the Zeldovich-Starobinsky-Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. Could we see and hear the future and/or past? Anyway, this scenario looks and feels somewhat like an oracle from any mythology...
 Quote by jimgraber Both string theory and loop quantum gravity claim possible elimination of the black hole singularities. If that is true, what do they predict the inside of a stellar size black hole contains? Is it some new ultra dense state of matter, or something else? I will try to ask various authorities this question at the APS meeting in St. Louis next week. But what’s your opinion? Has anything been published? The only concrete proposal I am aware of is the Mathur fuzzball (hep-th/0502050). Best, Jim Graber
 P: 136 I think your example of pushing a mirror inside the event horizon of a large black hole illustrates the sorry state of affairs of contemporary black hole analysis. The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation is normally quoted, and this equation results in infinite pressure inside the event horizon. So as an example, if we consider a 10 million solar mass black hole, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon would be about one millionth that at the surface of a neutron star. The surface of a neutron star obviously doesn't have infinite pressure.
P: 96
 Quote by Bernie G So as an example, if we consider a 10 million solar mass black hole, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon would be about one millionth that at the surface of a neutron star.
Wrong.
How can the gravitational acceleration at an event horizon be smaller than at the surface of a neutron star ?
P: 96
 Quote by mesinik Now, let's sit on this ring and push a mirror inside with a stick, beyond the event horizon ...
Good luck to you, because I am not going to be the one sitting on your ring...it would be a decidedly uncomfortable position to be in, I can assure you, what with your brains being sucked out through your toes, all ten of which by the way would have been stretched to the length of a freight train...you get the picture.
Anyway, let's for argument's sake pretend it was possible to do such a thing - you wouldn't be able to see anything reflected off the part of the mirror which is at and inside the event horizon. Also, you would not be able to pull the mirror back out. Basically, this whole thing is a waste of time.
 P: 407 There is a recent review by Mathur that is very clearly witten and a pleasure to read: http://arXiv.org/pdf/1201.2079 From his Fuzzball viepoint, these questions eg about a singularity are irrelevant.
P: 8
Thank you for positive feedback. I, too, would say: the points of view of avatar Bernie G might sometimes be a bit unanticipated, but they are fun to read and certainly on the positive side of this pleasant forum.
 Quote by Bernie G I think your example of pushing a mirror inside the event horizon of a large black hole illustrates the sorry state of affairs of contemporary black hole analysis. The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation is normally quoted, and this equation results in infinite pressure inside the event horizon. So as an example, if we consider a 10 million solar mass black hole, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon would be about one millionth that at the surface of a neutron star. The surface of a neutron star obviously doesn't have infinite pressure.
P: 8
Dear person behind avatar Markus Hanke
Thank you for your attention.
I am pleased to see, my text was interesting for you.
But regrettably (probably my grammar was a bit too heavyish), there is some unnecessary misunderstanding here. I will try to use less grammar next time; but you, too, could you please next time consider reading a sentence from the beginning to the end (and if you don't get the point, then reading again and doing some thinktank work) ... before you try to make fun of it, OK?
Hint: compound sentences include often many parts and you should read all of these parts. You should not cut out 1 little piece and advertise this as the meaning of a compound sentence.

 Quote by Markus Hanke Good luck to you, because I am not going to be the one sitting on your ring...it would be a decidedly uncomfortable position to be in, I can assure you, what with your brains being sucked out through your toes, all ten of which by the way would have been stretched to the length of a freight train...you get the picture.
P: 96
 Quote by mesinik Dear person behind avatar Markus Hanke Thank you for your attention. I am pleased to see, my text was interesting for you. But regrettably (probably my grammar was a bit too heavyish), there is some unnecessary misunderstanding here. I will try to use less grammar next time; but you, too, could you please next time consider reading a sentence from the beginning to the end (and if you don't get the point, then reading again and doing some thinktank work) ... before you try to make fun of it, OK? Hint: compound sentences include often many parts and you should read all of these parts. You should not cut out 1 little piece and advertise this as the meaning of a compound sentence.
Dear mesinik, I must apologize if you felt offended by my post. Reading through it now, I must admit that it does read a bit like a personal attack on your post, poking fun at it. Please be assured however that I did not actually intend it to be that way; I was merely trying to illustrate that sitting just above an event horizon is just not a possible way to investigate the properties of a black hole. I suppose the style and language of the post got out of hand - entirely my fault.
So again, please accept my public apology. I genuinely did not mean it to come across like this.
 P: 136 “How can the gravitational acceleration at an event horizon be smaller than at the surface of a neutron star ?” Because gravitational acceleration varies as the inverse of r squared. One of us is making a mistake. I was under the impression that distant super-massive black holes (10 billion solar masses) “disappeared” because the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon is so small (and the curvature so large) that infalling material doesn’t even radiate until it is well within the black hole. Hence I volunteer to sit on the ring and bravely stick my toes inside the event horizon of a trillion solar mass black hole, where the gravity (gulp) should be about as strong as in California. To challange the staus quo even further, here in a nutshell is my minority viewpoint about the size of a star composed of relativistic material inside a black hole: The gravitational energy could be as low as (4GM^2)/(5R) for a typical density profile, or possibly as high as (GM^2)/R (unlikely) if the star has a high density core. The total energy creating pressure would be (Mc^2)/3. Using the viral theorem (the energy creating pressure equals half the gravitational energy), a non-rotating star of relativistic material would have a radius as small as (1.2GM)/(c^2) or as large as (1.5GM)/(c^2), or between 60 - 75% of the Schwarzchild radius. If this model is true, it could be verified someday by the observation of the merger of two approximately equal mass black holes: a massive ejection from the relativistic stars would occur.
P: 96
 Quote by Bernie G “How can the gravitational acceleration at an event horizon be smaller than at the surface of a neutron star ?” Because gravitational acceleration varies as the inverse of r squared. One of us is making a mistake. I was under the impression that distant super-massive black holes (10 billion solar masses) “disappeared” because the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon is so small (and the curvature so large) that infalling material doesn’t even radiate until it is well within the black hole. Hence I volunteer to sit on the ring and bravely stick my toes inside the event horizon of a trillion solar mass black hole, where the gravity (gulp) should be about as strong as in California. To challange the staus quo even further, here in a nutshell is my minority viewpoint about the size of a star composed of relativistic material inside a black hole: The gravitational energy could be as low as (4GM^2)/(5R) for a typical density profile, or possibly as high as (GM^2)/R (unlikely) if the star has a high density core. The total energy creating pressure would be (Mc^2)/3. Using the viral theorem (the energy creating pressure equals half the gravitational energy), a non-rotating star of relativistic material would have a radius as small as (1.2GM)/(c^2) or as large as (1.5GM)/(c^2), or between 60 - 75% of the Schwarzchild radius. If this model is true, it could be verified someday by the observation of the merger of two approximately equal mass black holes: a massive ejection from the relativistic stars would occur.
I don't really get what you are saying; the event horizon is a boundary beyond which photons cannot escape the gravitational pull of the BH. Its radius is only dependent on the total mass of the BH. As neutrons stars are stable and do not collapse gravitationally, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon for a BH of equal mass must be much stronger than at the surface of the neutron star ?! If it was the other way around all neutron stars would immediately collapse...
 P: 136 "the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon for a BH of equal mass must be much stronger than at the surface of the neutron star" I should have been clearer and was referring to a typical neutron star of one or two solar masses. What I said was: "if we consider a 10 million solar mass black hole, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon would be about one millionth that at the surface of a neutron star."

 Related Discussions Special & General Relativity 26 Cosmology 33 Special & General Relativity 0 Astronomy & Astrophysics 1 General Discussion 4