Could singularities be just rips in the space-time fabric?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of singularities in the context of black holes and the implications of gravity on space-time. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of singularities, the limitations of current physics, and the metaphors used to describe space-time, particularly the notion of a "fabric." The conversation touches on concepts from general relativity and quantum theory, as well as the challenges in understanding extreme conditions near singularities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that singularities may represent a breakdown in our understanding of physics, particularly where general relativity and quantum theory collide.
  • Others argue that the term "fabric" is a misleading metaphor and not scientifically accurate, suggesting it oversimplifies complex concepts in physics.
  • A participant questions how matter can be concentrated in a singularity without breaking the fabric of space-time, suggesting it may imply a transition to another dimension.
  • Some express skepticism about the existence of singularities, suggesting they may be artifacts of incomplete theories rather than physical realities.
  • There is a discussion about the influence of pop-science on public understanding, with some participants advocating for more rigorous scientific sources over simplified explanations.
  • Several participants express curiosity about the nature of singularities and the potential for new theories to explain them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the nature of singularities is not well understood and that current theories may not fully explain them. However, there are competing views regarding the validity of the "fabric" metaphor and the implications of singularities, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the extreme conditions near singularities and the dependence on definitions of terms like "fabric" and "singularity." There is also a recognition of the unresolved mathematical and theoretical aspects of these concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, particularly in the areas of black holes, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, as well as individuals seeking to understand the complexities of scientific communication and public perception of science.

Mlesnita Daniel
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
First off, this is just an assumption. My knowledge of the field is extremely limited and I beg you to come and correct my mistakes, so I can learn.

So, I guess we all know how that space-time fabric is bended by gravity. When a star dies, all of the atoms are brought extremely close together, only the forces of repulsion, keeps the "star"(for example a white-dwarf) with some kind of structural integrity. In a neutron star, all of the atoms are affected so much by gravity's force, that only the repulsion by the neutrons keep it's integrity(i forgot what happens to the the electrons and protons, sorry).

Now, if a star is big enough, when it dies nothing can stop the gravity that wants to collect every piece of matter in a single dot. Could this dot(singularity) be just so dense(many say that it is infinite) that the space-time fabric itself could break? Nature does not use infinities. So how can all that matter, all those items be in just one single spot without. let's say. breaking the fabric and going to another dimension or another scenario like this (I know how it sounds, but I'm curious)?

Or does this imply quantum effects that I have low to zero knowledge of and I will have to delete this post?

(English is not my first language, as you can see)

Thank you!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Your scenario describes the formation of a black hole. Once it is formed, the current theories of physics (quantum theory and general relativity) come into collision, so no one knows what really happens. The singularity you described is the result of general relativity without considering quantum theory..
 
Mlesnita Daniel said:
So, I guess we all know how that space-time fabric is bended by gravity.
Uh, no, what we all actually know is that space-time is not a "fabric" at all. That's an erroneous pop-science metaphor that does not belong in discussions of actual science despite the fact that it is so wide-spread.

Also, "singularity" is not a real thing, it is a word that is used as a place-holder for the longer phrase "the place were the math model breaks down and gives un-physical results and we don't know WHAT is/was going on there".

Other than that, see mathman's reply.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, Mlesnita Daniel, unusually_wrong and 1 other person
Mlesnita Daniel said:
So how can all that matter, all those items be in just one single spot without. let's say. breaking the fabric and going to another dimension or another scenario like this (I know how it sounds, but I'm curious)?

It probably can't all be in one spot. Our understanding of physics at the immense densities and energy scales found near where singularities are predicted to form is sorely lacking. The singularity itself is very likely an artifact of our incomplete knowledge and probably doesn't exist.
 
mathman said:
Your scenario describes the formation of a black hole.
yeah, I forgot to refer to it as a black hole, sorry.
mathman said:
The singularity you described is the result of general relativity without considering quantum theory..
I think this is what I tried to do. Because, as I mentioned before, I have low to 0 knowledge of quantum effects, I tried to make sense with the little that I knew.
phinds said:
Uh, no, what we all actually know is that space-time is not a "fabric" at all. That's an erroneous pop-science metaphor that does not belong in discussions of actual science despite the fact that it is so wide-spread.
really? It seems that I really have to dig more into it. I mean, it seemed so reasonable, taking into account that most of the documentaries use that term. Maybe they tried to simplify it for the average viewer? I will have to find another way to understand some gravity and time stuff then.
phinds said:
Also, "singularity" is not a real thing, it is a word that is used as a place-holder for the longer phrase "the place were the math model breaks down and gives un-physical results and we don't know WHAT is/was going on there".
Drakkith said:
It probably can't all be in one spot. Our understanding of physics at the immense densities and energy scales found near where singularities are predicted to form is sorely lacking. The singularity itself is very likely an artifact of our incomplete knowledge and probably doesn't exist.
I suppose this is one of the reasons that make black holes so interesting?

Thank you all for correcting my mistakes. I really appreciate that you had the patience to answer to me. I had some incorrect understandings for quite a long time. :)
 
Mlesnita Daniel said:
really? It seems that I really have to dig more into it. I mean, it seemed so reasonable, taking into account that most of the documentaries use that term. Maybe they tried to simplify it for the average viewer?
Pop-science presentations are entertainment, NOT science. They want things to be easy to understand even if that means they have to present things in ways that are totally incorrect.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mlesnita Daniel
Mlesnita Daniel said:
I will have to find another way to understand some gravity and time stuff then.

One B level person to another ...

I think GR only goes as far as saying gravity affects the path that light follows, and then defining a geometry to describe the path that light follows in the presence of gravity. There is no definition of something called a fabric or prediction that some physically observable thing like a fabric might be found as far as I know in GR.

The pop-sci fabric statements (I think) comes from drawing lots of lines that light may follow when near a massive object and the image of all these lines is called a fabric - but as far as I know there is nothing there to constitute an actual fabric, its just a description for lots of light paths being drawn in a nice fabric-like manner.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Grinkle said:
The pop-sci fabric statements (I think) comes from drawing lots of lines that light may follow when near a massive object and the image of all these lines is called a fabric - but as far as I know there is nothing there to constitute an actual fabric, its just a description for lots of light paths being drawn in a nice fabric-like manner.
That, and Star Trek ;)
 
As I recall, Einstein himself once used the term "fabric" in this context (and that's how it got started) but it was not something he would likely have done in a discussion with serious physicists.
 
  • #10
As everyone here has said, no one really knows what is going on at the singularity. So, yes, It may rip the "fabric" of space and enter another dimension or even another universe. There are several theories on this subject. I also have a very limited knowledge on this but am curious.
 
  • #11
zuz said:
As everyone here has said, no one really knows what is going on at the singularity. So, yes, It may rip the "fabric" of space and enter another dimension or even another universe. There are several theories on this subject. I also have a very limited knowledge on this but am curious.
No, it cannot enter another dimension or another universe, even if such should exist, because that would contradict the fact that the gravity from the mass clearly doesn't go away. You should read less pop-science and more actual science.
 
  • #12
No need to be rude
 
  • #13
zuz said:
No need to be rude
In what way do you feel I was being rude? It was not my intent. You made statements based on pop-science and I pointed it out, that's all. You'll find that that happens a lot on this forum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #14
phinds said:
You should read less pop-science and more actual science.

Can you give me some sources please? :)

My actual science resources are N.A.S.A.'s site (their youtube channels, and JPL's too) and Anton Petrov. A guy that makes videos about astronomy "news" and post the source of the research in the comments. Do you know any site or anything like this where I can find "astronomy news"? Not even astronomy, science in general, but with the sources to the research involved in it.
 
  • #15
Mlesnita Daniel said:
Can you give me some sources please? :)

My actual science resources are N.A.S.A.'s site (their youtube channels, and JPL's too) and Anton Petrov. A guy that makes videos about astronomy "news" and post the source of the research in the comments. Do you know any site or anything like this where I can find "astronomy news"? Not even astronomy, science in general, but with the sources to the research involved in it.
I can't really help you on that since I don't follow science news anywhere but here but I'm sure others will. I got most of my information initially from pop-science presentations (LOTS of them) and then came here and learned that pretty much everything I "knew" was wrong. Fortunately for me, I did not make the mistake of answering questions or making statements here based on my pop-science knowledge but just spent a couple of years reading the answers here to others' questions, plus a few books that had been recommended here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mlesnita Daniel, rbelli1, davenn and 1 other person
  • #16
I find it interesting the references to Pop-Science (Sci-Fi) and Real Science. If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated. A lot of Sci-Fi is written by authors who have or have had careers in related fields so there must be some acceptance or actual formal terminology. Anyone?
 
  • #17
happyhacker said:
If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated.

There is not. (Who would it be?) If there were, we could start with "relativistic mass", coined in 1906, shown to be useless in 1908, and here we are 111 years later and it's still in popularizations.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
happyhacker said:
I find it interesting the references to Pop-Science (Sci-Fi) and Real Science. If such terms as 'Fabric' are not encouraged or liked by professionals I wonder if there is a discussion somewhere where such terminology is debated. A lot of Sci-Fi is written by authors who have or have had careers in related fields so there must be some acceptance or actual formal terminology. Anyone?

What you'll find if you pick up an undergraduate or graduate textbook on GR is no mention of spacetime "fabric", except perhaps as a footnote. What you will find are references to the stress-energy tensor. So:

Search online for "spacetime fabric" and you will find mostly popular science sources. Even if they are produced by NASA.

Search online for "stress-energy tensor" and you will find mostly real science sources. I.e. predominantly dealing with the academic subject, as studied at universities.

This purpose of this site is the "real" subject, where spacetime fabric has no useful meaning.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: happyhacker and Mlesnita Daniel
  • #19
Interesting. Thanks. So the only 'public face' of the scientific community is the likes of news outlets, YouTube, and science websites which although some have scientists gone to journalism seem to prefer pop-science terms in their writings. So nothing is currently bridging the terminology gap. I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task. I did a quick search and came up with this. Never mind! Just curious. Over and Out.
 
  • #20
happyhacker said:
I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task.
Why? Their job is to evaluate and present science papers, not discuss popular entertainment.
 
  • #21
phinds said:
Why? Their job is to evaluate and present science papers, not discuss popular entertainment.

I never stated it was. Read my last reply!
 
  • #22
happyhacker said:
I never stated it was. Read my last reply!
Ummm yes you did ... :wink:

happyhacker said:
I would have thought the professional publications would see this as a task.

As phinds said, it isn't their task, they deal with evaluating REAL science
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
  • #23
The idea of a singularity is similar to dividing by zero.
It means that whatever math you are applying to the situation is nonsense.
(or to be pedantic, it means that the result is undefinable).
 
  • #24
rootone said:
The idea of a singularity is similar to dividing by zero.
It means that whatever math you are applying to the situation is nonsense.
(or to be pedantic, it means that the result is undefinable).

Oh, thanks. Pretty weird that I thought that as truth. I need to read more books and watch fewer documentaries. :)
 

Similar threads

High School How Can Black Holes Vary in Size if They Are Singularities?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
High School Can We Use Space/Time Fabric to See the Past?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Temperature of a black hole....observed from the singularity
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
High School Gravastar vs. Neutron Stars: A New Theory for Black Hole Formation?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School How do we study space-time singularities?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School Is the Big Bang Just an Event in an Existing Space/Time Fabric?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate A way to ripple the fabric of space?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad The Heavier Elements: A Question About Their Abundance
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
High School Trying to understand orbiting objects in space
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K