What prevents black hole singularities from being reached?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of black hole singularities, specifically what prevents them from being reached. Participants explore theoretical implications, definitions, and the role of time dilation in the context of general relativity and potential quantum gravity theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the term "singularity" implies infinite density, but question whether true singularities exist due to time dilation effects.
  • Others propose the idea of finite mass with zero volume as a definition of singularity, raising doubts about the completeness of current theories like string theory.
  • A participant notes that time dilation could prevent an infalling object from reaching the center of a black hole, suggesting that the collapse of mass may also be affected by this phenomenon.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of time dilation for objects falling into black holes and whether this provides any comfort regarding the nature of singularities.
  • One participant mentions that Hawking Radiation could theoretically reduce a black hole's mass below a critical threshold before a singularity is reached.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the definition and existence of singularities, with no clear consensus on whether true singularities can exist or how they should be defined. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the implications of time dilation and the nature of black holes.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in current theories, such as the incompleteness of string theory and the reliance on classical general relativity, which may not fully capture the behavior of singularities.

A Black Hole "singularity is:

  • A point of infinite mass and density

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • A sphere of finite size and density

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • A ring as per Kerr/Newman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not necessary to be defined as "singularities"

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • More than one above

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9
Labguy
Science Advisor
Messages
731
Reaction score
7
Just checking current thought.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I got 100%, did I win?

Just viewed the poll results, everyone agrees with me, 100% is the poll result for what I picked as the answer.

Yahooooooooooooooooo!

I picked the second one, finite size and density. Infinity is an "inconcievable" so pick that one, and admit to 'fooling yourself'
 
Hi Labguy,
I am much in favor of checking current thought, as you say,
on this and other things. I notice that you do not
include the possibility of finite mass with infinite density
(that is, finite mass and zero volume).

I will try to guess after I have thought a little----certainly
do not know the answer right off!

Do we really know what singularities are?
String theory is far from proven----isnt even complete yet.
The classical GR geometry is probably just an approximation
to a quantum geometry picture of a singularity, that perhaps
does not yet exist in anyone's mind?

This is very puzzling.

Anyway congrats on posting an interesting poll!
 
Well, I suppose calling it a "singularity" means that it has infinite density by definition, but I'm guessing that "correct definition of the word" is not what you were asking. "Finite mass with zero volume" is what "singularity" means, but for reasons related to time dilation, I don't think true singularities exist.

I chose "Not...Defined...".
 
Originally posted by LURCH
Well, I suppose calling it a "singularity" means that it has infinite density by definition, but I'm guessing that "correct definition of the word" is not what you were asking. "Finite mass with zero volume" is what "singularity" means, but for reasons related to time dilation, I don't think true singularities exist.

I chose "Not...Defined...".
A. I agree.
B. Me too.
 
Originally posted by LURCH
Well, I suppose calling it a "singularity" means that it has infinite density by definition, but I'm guessing that "correct definition of the word" is not what you were asking. "Finite mass with zero volume" is what "singularity" means, but for reasons related to time dilation, I don't think true singularities exist.

I chose "Not...Defined...".

Well I voted for "not necessary to be defined as singularities"
but I would certainly appreciate some more discussion.
Not sure what comfort time dilation gives to one unfortunate to fall into a black hole. May he not encounter all the nastiness
we may reasonably expect and conclude that it is a true singularity. Please provide some detail.
 
Originally posted by marcus
Well I voted for "not necessary to be defined as singularities"
but I would certainly appreciate some more discussion.
Not sure what comfort time dilation gives to one unfortunate to fall into a black hole. May he not encounter all the nastiness
we may reasonably expect and conclude that it is a true singularity. Please provide some detail.

Oh yes, all the nastiness would be there. There would be the heartbreak of falling beyond a point from which one could not return, and the ripping in half (such an inconvenience) and all that goes with it. But the use of the term "singularity" implies that the mass at the center of the BH occupies a single point in spacetime. The mass would have dimensions of "zero" in all directions, and that's what I think will be prevented by time dilation.

As you've probably heard, time dilation (according to most BH models) would keep an infalling victim from ever reaching the center. If this model is correct, then the same phenominon should keep the original collapse of the central mass from ever reaching the exact center. As it shrank, time would proceed more and more slowly, causing the final moment before reaching a state of true singularity to take forever.

Of course, at the Event Horizon, things would proceed much more normally. So the rate at which Hawking Radiation removes mass from the BH would eventually equal and then greatly exceed the rate of collapse. This would theoretically result in the reduction of the BH mass to less than three Solar Masses (at which point it should no longer be a BH) long before the central mass reaches true singularity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K