- #1

Labguy

Science Advisor

- 731

- 7

Just checking current thought.

Last edited:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Labguy
- Start date

- #1

Labguy

Science Advisor

- 731

- 7

Just checking current thought.

Last edited:

- #2

- 1,256

- 0

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'

- #3

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 788

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!

- #4

LURCH

Science Advisor

- 2,549

- 118

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

- #5

Labguy

Science Advisor

- 731

- 7

A. I agree.Originally posted by LURCH

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

B. Me too.

- #6

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 788

Originally posted by LURCH

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.

- #7

LURCH

Science Advisor

- 2,549

- 118

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:

Share: