Black holes and General Relativity

Snaar
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody, I was watching a documentary about black holes the other day and I noticed something odd.

General Relativity is said to break down when you apply the mathematics on a singularity. In this case, the center of the black hole. The radius of a singularity would be 0. Now there was my problem. I was learned that the smallest possible length, is Planck's length (1.616199 × 10-35) meters. I guess that the radius of a singularity would have to be the shortest possible length.

What is your opinion on this? And where did I (probably) make my mistake in my 'logic'?

Thanks in advance! :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Snaar said:
I was learned that the smallest possible length, is Planck's length (1.616199 × 10-35) meters. I guess that the radius of a singularity would have to be the shortest possible length.

The concept of a shortest possible length comes from quantum gravity; in classical General Relativity, there is no such thing. That's why the standard classical GR theory of black holes has a singularity at r = 0.

However, it is true that the presence of the singularity at r = 0 in the classical theory is one thing that indicates, to many physicists, that the classical GR theory breaks down at this point; and the best current guess we have right now as to the point at which it breaks down is at a length scale on the order of the Planck length. That doesn't mean that the radius of the singularity is the Planck length instead of zero; it means that, when we have discovered the right theory of quantum gravity, we expect that there will no longer be a singularity at all; instead some new physics will come into play at length scales on the order of the Planck length.

We don't have a good theory of quantum gravity yet, so all this is really speculation (educated speculation, but still speculation) until we do.
 
Alright, I get what you mean. I'm going to search some quantum gravity theories, I don't really get the concept of that.

Thanks for answering!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top