Are Black Holes Real? Investigating Gravitational Collapse

[Chimps]

hi, I have a question.

Is it a reasonable assumption that there is no force that will prevent collapse to a singularity?

Without knowledge of the physics involved, and with the impossiblity of singularities in nature (which again might be suspect reasoning), why are black holes considered to be a real phenomenon?

Does anybody think black holes are probably impossible? and is there any chance that particle accelerators could answer this question?

 

[hamster143]

Singularities may or may not exist (we need quantum theory of gravity to figure out what exactly is going on), but there's no physical reason why you can't have enough mass packed into a small area of space to create an event horizon. Once you have an event horizon, it looks like a black hole for all intents and purposes, for all external observers.

 

[Chronos]

I think it is unreasonable to assume no physical forces can prevent a singularity. Nature abhors infinities. Even by modern physics, a singularity would take forever to form. An event horizon, however, can form in temporal space. It takes much less time. Appears I am agreeing with hamster.

 

[Chimps]

Thanks for the interesting replies. What you say about singulraties taking forever to form makes a lot of sense. Forever being until the end of time?

So when time is done, the singularities can exist.

 

[hamster143]

Thanks for the interesting replies. What you say about singulraties taking forever to form makes a lot of sense. Forever being until the end of time?

So when time is done, the singularities can exist.

Time is relative, even in SR, and especially in GR.

What 'Chimps' means is probably that an external observer (someone entirely on the outside of the black hole) will never see the singularity form. From his point of view, the "black hole" always appears to be frozen at the last stage of formation.

An observer on the collision course with the black hole will see things differently. He will hit the singularity (or whatever there really is at the center of the black hole) in finite time.

The lesson of GR is that spacetime is no longer the trivial R^3 x R^1, it's something entirely different. Even if GR's predictions with regard to singularities are wrong. Things are sufficiently complicated, even if singularities can't really form because of some yet unknown quantum-level behavior.

 

[Chimps]

An observer on the collision course with the black hole will see things differently. He will hit the singularity (or whatever there really is at the center of the black hole) in finite time.

So if I fell into a black hole I would experience the end of time along with everything else that ever fell into every black hole.

 

[Dmitry67]

I believe this had been discussed a lot in multiple threads - singularities DO NOT take forever to form. This is true only in the coordinate system of the distant observer. Free falling observer reaches singularity in finite (and quite short) time.

 

[Dmitry67]

So if I fell into a black hole I would experience the end of time along with everything else that ever fell into every black hole.

This is not true either, while for the distant observer it takes forever for your light to reach him, so while for the distant observer you look 'frozen', still you don't see the all the future history of the universe.

You will be see some of the events outside of the Black hole AFTER you crossed the horizon (because light from these external events will also fell inside and reaches you when you are already inside the horizon) - but not for a long time.

 

[Chimps]

But surely if I reach the singularity that would have to mean infinity was reached and therefore time doesn't exist anymore. Therefore everything else has also come in as well. Why am I wrong here? I am confused.

 

[Dmitry67]

You are wrong at "Therefore everything else has also come in as well"

Time is not global
In 'classical' GR (without Quantum Gravity, so with infinities and singularities) worldlines end at singularity. So what? How does it affect the world outside?

 

[Chimps]

I'm not talking about the world outside though. I'm talking from my perspective and I'm at a singularity where time doesn't exist. So how could it come in after me?

 

[Dmitry67]

I don't understand your question

For the falling observer singularity is in the future. You approach singularity and tidal forces increase, ripping you apart sooner or later.

In GR, time exist everywhere except the singularity, where physical laws fail to predict anything. So time exists everywhere physical laws are applicable.

 

[Chimps]

Think about it. You are saying that I wouldn't see much of the future as I fell in and reached the singularity. Time would not exist at the singularity so logically nothing can reach it before or after anything else that fell into it.

 

[Wallace]

The biggest misconception is thinking of 'a singularity' as a thing, a point, an object. This is not the case. A singularity is a mathematical phenomenon, like a divide by zero error. It is a situation where the maths of your theory gives you a non-sensical result. Dmitry has done a fine job of trying to explain this (as well as the other common misconception about black holes taking an infinite time to form). I know that it's pop-sci bread and butter to muse about 'the singularity' as if it was something actually predicted by a working theory, but none the less it's nonsense.

It's meaningless to talk about the 'singularity', but what does make sense to speak of is the event horizon, that is something that is real, and something that has been observed (at least the consequences of it). You can even sensibly work out what an observer sees and feels once they have passed the event horizon (after which they cannot leave again). However once your radial co-ordinate goes to zero the game is over, GR stops telling you anything meaningful.

 

[Chronos]

I agree to the extent that time becomes meaningless to an infalling observer upon reaching the singularity.

 

[Chimps]

The biggest misconception is thinking of 'a singularity' as a thing, a point, an object. This is not the case. A singularity is a mathematical phenomenon, like a divide by zero error. It is a situation where the maths of your theory gives you a non-sensical result. Dmitry has done a fine job of trying to explain this (as well as the other common misconception about black holes taking an infinite time to form). I know that it's pop-sci bread and butter to muse about 'the singularity' as if it was something actually predicted by a working theory, but none the less it's nonsense.

It's meaningless to talk about the 'singularity', but what does make sense to speak of is the event horizon, that is something that is real, and something that has been observed (at least the consequences of it). You can even sensibly work out what an observer sees and feels once they have passed the event horizon (after which they cannot leave again). However once your radial co-ordinate goes to zero the game is over, GR stops telling you anything meaningful.

With all due respect, I can't see how Dmitry, or yourself, has done a fine job at all.

As you approach the singularity then all time must compress so that everything reaches the singularity together. How can it be any other way? There is no point at which it can go from being not a singularity to a singularity. So I agree with Chronos on this one.

 

[Wallace]

As you approach the singularity then all time must compress so that everything reaches the singularity together. How can it be any other way? There is no point at which it can go from being not a singularity to a singularity. So I agree with Chronos on this one.

As I've tried to explain, there is no such thing in nature as a 'singularity'. It is something that can occur in mathematical equations, and if those equations describe physics it tells you that you're theory is not behaving sensibly at some point.

Musing about what goes on 'at the singularity' is like asking what it would be like to be minus eleventy six years old, or how long your toes would be if you didn't have feet. These things are not well posed concepts, so you can't rationally discuss them. The only thing we do know exists (or are at least pretty sure of, based on observations) is the event horizon of black holes. We can sensibly talk about what will and won't be seen by observers crossing those. But not 'singularities'.

 

[Chimps]

I'm not talking about the singularity.

Of course we can't know the physics of a singularity. I understand that, but we can still speculate about what is happening between the event horizon and the singularity. That is what I was referring to when I said that time must compress for the observer heading towards a singularity.

 

[Wallace]

You have to be careful when you are talking about 'time'. You can only talk about how time is altered by speaking in relative terms, your own time is always just your time and never changes. In this case, if you fall into a black hole you do not see, the time tick rate of someone else, say a distant observer, compress to an infinitely slow (or fast?) rate.

Have a look at http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/quiz.html" site, particularly the answer to quiz question number 5. Note that site uses some unfortunate terminology, like 'what happens when you get to the singularity' but all the observational stuff is spot on. Some good movies and pics to have a look at as well.

 

[Chimps]

I had a look and it agrees with you and Dmitry but I think it is incorrect.

I think you are making a logical error with regards to your understanding of time.

We all agree that we can't know what happens at a singularity, but we seem to disagree about what you would observe as you approach a singularity. There is no point at which a singularity can be reached in time, but an observer can head towards it. Time would compress and so the the idea of a singularity forming or being reached in finite time is false.

 

[Dmitry67]

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/DFblackIn.gif

On the diagram the proper time of a falling object is proportional simply to the length of the line! Obviously, it is finite.

I suggest stopping thinking in weird terms like 'time compression'. Time is not compressed, it is dilated RELATIVE TO OTHER OBSERVER. Your own proper time for you is always ok.

Finally, on this diagram you can see where you reach the singularity.

 

[Chimps]

I am familiar with that diagram, but it does not represent what an observer would experience as he approaches a singularity.

I am not disputing that the observer would experience anything other than finite time from his perspective as he heads towards the singularity but I am disputing the idea that he would reach the singularity in finite time.

If and when the observer reaches the singularity it would be at the point where time is nonexistent. Therefore, he would experience all time merging as he closes in on the singularity. Therefore no singularities form and nothing reaches them in finite time.

 

[Dmitry67]

But GR does not describe the moment when he reaches the singularity!
Singularity is a point where GR breaks and does not provide any answer.
But GR appears to be valid like up to the last millimeter and last microsecond before the singularity.

 

[Dmitry67]

If and when the observer reaches the singularity it would be at the point where time is nonexistent. Therefore, he would experience all time merging as he closes in on the singularity.

I think here is a heart of confusion.
You think that as far from singularity we have time at 100%, and in the singularity time does not exist (0%), then close to the singularity it must gradually 'fade' from 100% to 0%

Not at all! Nobody promised you that it is continuus. Singularity itself is non-continuity
ANd finally it is not like 100%->50%->0%. It is rather like 100%->100%->N/A

 

[S.Vasojevic]

Therefore no singularities form and nothing reaches them in finite time.

What singularity then observer is falling into?

 

[Chimps]

Yes, I completely agree.

Therefore, as I said, in cannot be reached (or formed) in finite time.

 

[Chimps]

I think here is a heart of confusion.
You think that as far from singularity we have time at 100%, and in the singularity time does not exist (0%), then close to the singularity it must gradually 'fade' from 100% to 0%

Not at all! Nobody promised you that it is continuus. Singularity itself is non-continuity
ANd finally it is not like 100%->50%->0%. It is rather like 100%->100%->N/A

I disagree. It cannot be 100%->100%->N/A since that would mean infinity can be reached which is clearly absurd.

 

[S.Vasojevic]

What Dmitry means, is that you can't have regions which are semi-singular.

 

[Chimps]

Noone is disputing that we can't know the nature of a singularity.

The dispute regards the approach towards such an anomaly.

 

[Skolon]

Chimps, you are talking about something does not really exist: singularities.

As Wallace told you, singularities are just a flaw of GR. Exist just within that theory.
With other words, GR are trying to explain phenomenons for who doesn't have right tools.

To describe correctly singularities we need a theory undeveloped yet: quantum gravity.

 

[Chimps]

I'm not talking about the singularity, as I have already said.

I'm talking about the observer heading towards the singularity.

 

[Dmitry67]

I disagree. It cannot be 100%->100%->N/A since that would mean infinity can be reached which is clearly absurd.

Take y=1/x
say, x=0.1
Now move position of x by -0.1 (finite movement)
Do you 'reach the singularity'? :)

I don't follow your logic. Looks like it is based on too many 'common sense assumptions' which are not valid. Could you get rid of the words 'clearly', 'absurd' and try to explain your logic? You can start from giving any mathematical definition of what "reaching the infinity" means.

 

[Dmitry67]

I'm not talking about the singularity, as I have already said.

I'm talking about the observer heading towards the singularity.

If you are not talking about the singularity itself, then GR is accurately describing what happens. The length of a worldline of freely falling observer is finite. So one can't say that "it takes infinite time to reach the singularity".

 

[Chimps]

Take y=1/x
say, x=0.1
Now move position of x by -0.1 (finite movement)

Well, for a start, that move becomes meaningless in this discussion because you are not including the existence/non-existence of time.

 

[Dmitry67]

Well, for a start, that move becomes meaningless in this discussion because you are not including the existence/non-existence of time.

Wait :)
Just 1 post ago you claimed that:

I'm not talking about the singularity, as I have already said.

I'm talking about the observer heading towards the singularity.

If you are not talking about the singularity, then you are talking about the area of spacetime correctly defined in GR. So there is no place where you can start talking about "non-existence of time"

In GR time exists everywhere except the singularity, where GR gives an answer "N/A", not "Time does not exist" as you might think.

 

[Chimps]

If you are not talking about the singularity itself, then GR is accurately describing what happens. The length of a worldline of freely falling observer is finite. So one can't say that "it takes infinite time to reach the singularity".

As we established - it is beyond GR. I am not disputing that. It is time itself which is the 'on or off'. It's like constantly halving a ruler. From our perspective time is infinite so any attempts to spacially reconcile a singularity are pointless.

 

[Skolon]

For me, inside a black hole, at its centre exist a very strange kind of object, extremely dense (but finite), with a finite diameter and a huge temperature (but also finite).
I don't have arguments, but I strongly believe that in Universe nothing can be reduced to a size beyond Planck length, even inside a BH.

All falling matter is broken down in quarks and leptons (possible in strings) and is added to that core. And if all matter in Universe will be added in just one black hole its core will be still bigger than Planck length. But then an other phenomena will happen: a Big Bounce.

So, a falling observer will be simply broken in basic elements and will be added to BH core in finite observer time.

Edit: But as I said, this is my idea of BH inside. Something like this avoid strange things like singularities.

 

[Dmitry67]

As we established - it is beyond GR. I am not disputing that. It is time itself which is the 'on or off'. It's like constantly halving a ruler. From our perspective time is infinite so any attempts to spacially reconcile a singularity are pointless.

Even if time in GR is not defined at singularity, the time-like distance to it is well defined in GR, and it is finite.

I can give you an example. Take a line from 0 to infinity: [0,inf[
We are at x=1, so the distance to x=0 is 1-0=1.

Now we EXCLUDE point x=0. Say, for some reason our theory does not work at x=0.
So instead of [0,inf[ we have open set from both sides: ]0,inf[
Still, the distance from x=1 to x=0 is well defined and it is not infinite.

So even GR does not say anything about the singularity itself, the timelike distance to singularity is well defined in GR. There is no places where you can apply any form of Zeno paradox with "constantly halving a ruler"

 

[Dmitry67]

For me, inside a black hole, at its centre exist a very strange kind of object, extremely dense (but finite), with a finite diameter and a huge temperature (but also finite).
I don't have arguments, but I strongly believe that in Universe nothing can be reduced to a size beyond Planck length, even inside a BH.

All falling matter is broken down in quarks and leptons (possible in strings) and is added to that core. And if all matter in Universe will be added in just one black hole its core will be still bigger than Planck length. But then an other phenomena will happen: a Big Bounce.

So, a falling observer will be simply broken in basic elements and will be added to BH core in finite observer time.

Edit: But as I said, this is my idea of BH inside. Something like this avoid strange things like singularities.

Yes. I have some arguments that it is much bigger then Plank length (but still very small). I need to make some calculations.

 

[Chimps]

Even if time in GR is not defined at singularity, the time-like distance to it is well defined in GR, and it is finite.

I can give you an example. Take a line from 0 to infinity: [0,inf[
We are at x=1, so the distance to x=0 is 1-0=1.

Now we EXCLUDE point x=0. Say, for some reason our theory does not work at x=0.
So instead of [0,inf[ we have open set from both sides: ]0,inf[
Still, the distance from x=1 to x=0 is well defined and it is not infinite.

So even GR does not say anything about the singularity itself, the timelike distance to singularity is well defined in GR. There is no places where you can apply any form of Zeno paradox with "constantly halving a ruler"

The ruler analogy was poor and didn't represent my argument very well so please ignore that.

My argument does not consist of any form of Zeno paradox. Your example is not sufficient when considering spacetime. There is no point zero as such which can represent a singularity. There is only a point (if you want to call it such) in which you would be heading towards infinity.

 

[Dmitry67]

This is exactly my example: there is no such point (x=0) so when you approach x->0 you are 'heading towards infinity'. Still distance is well defined.

You you believe other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

and showed that the dust particles could reach the singularity in finite proper time.

 

[Marcellus]

I hate to get too philisophical on this mater, but it seems to me that instead of asking what you would observe after crossing the event horizon, a more appropriate question would be "could you continue to exist in a state that would even allow observation".

We make our observations in 4-dimensional spacetime. I think the problem is that at the event horizon, these 4 dimensions cease to exist in the same way as they do on our side of the horizon. Furthermore, it would seem to me that the mass of your body could not exist in the same way once crossing that horizon.

So, since all human observation is 4-dimensional, how can you measure something outside of those 4 dimensions?

 

[Dmitry67]

Marcellus, GR is very accurate, you continue to exist and you will continue to observe.
Even more, you can actually fall into a supermassive BH without even noticing it.

 

[Chimps]

This is exactly my example: there is no such point (x=0) so when you approach x->0 you are 'heading towards infinity'. Still distance is well defined.

You you believe other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

I can't see how this is consistent with the position you took earlier. Also, why are you linking to an article about the Schwarzschild radius?

The distance is not well defined, in a spacetime scenario, the distance is impossible to define.

 

[George Jones]

The Schwarzschild radius associated with a mass m is 2Gm/c^2, so I don't know what you mean by

I can't see how this is consistent with the position you took earlier. Also, why are you linking to an article about the Schwarzschild radius?

The distance is not well defined, in a spacetime scenario, the distance is impossible to define.

Could you elaborate?