How to view black holes / horizon from a manifold perspective

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of black holes and their event horizons from a manifold perspective within the framework of General Relativity (GR). Participants explore the nature of singularities and their embeddings in spacetime manifolds, considering both theoretical implications and mathematical representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether black holes can be viewed as submanifolds within a smooth 4-manifold endowed with a metric, specifically regarding the event horizon and singularity.
  • Another participant agrees that black holes can be considered submanifolds but notes that the singularity's status is more complex, suggesting it is not part of the manifold.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that if the singularity were to be defined as part of the manifold, it would not be a point but rather a spacelike surface.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of the singularity, with one participant describing it as approaching a collapsed 3-cylinder structure, complicating its representation.
  • Some participants argue that the singularity could be conceptualized as a line in spacetime, but this perspective is challenged by others who emphasize the topological issues involved.
  • There is a discussion about the dimensionality of the singularity, with one participant noting that the dimensionality can vary based on the choice of coordinates, particularly in the context of Schwarzschild spacetime.
  • Another participant highlights the difficulty in defining the singularity's dimensionality due to the absence of a metric at that point, suggesting that indirect methods may be necessary for such definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of singularities and their representation within manifolds. There is no consensus on whether singularities can be treated as points, lines, or surfaces, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these representations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on complex mathematical and topological issues related to the representation of singularities and event horizons, with limitations stemming from the absence of a well-defined metric at singularities in certain coordinate systems.

clerk
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi friends,
I was wondering about the following - in GR texts we always see these penrose diagrams and some line representing the horizon and all these timelike , spacelike curves and all that ... but the picture that I have of GR is just that of a smooth 4 manifold endowed with a metric . Can I view black holes in such a picture? For example, this event horizon is a submanifold and the singularity as some point which cannot be covered by any coordinate patch ? Thanks for any help ..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well yes the black hole is just a submanifold with boundary embedded in the space-time manifold. The singularity being complemented out of the manifold is a bit more subtle an issue.

However this is rather standard material that is covered in advanced GR texts, see for example chapters 9 and 12 of Wald and chapters 8 and 9 of Hawking and Ellis.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
clerk said:
[...]the picture that I have of GR is just that of a smooth 4 manifold endowed with a metric . Can I view black holes in such a picture? For example, this event horizon is a submanifold and the singularity as some point which cannot be covered by any coordinate patch ?

Yes, but the standard way to define this is that singularity is not part of the manifold. If you did want to define it as part of the manifold, it wouldn't be a point. It would be a spacelike surface.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
But not an ordinary 3-surface. On approach to the SC singularity, the 3-surfaces approach a collapsed 3-cylinder: 2-sphere X line, with 2-sphere area going to zero. The approach surfaces can be embedded in Euclidean 4-space but not in Euclidean 3-space.
 
I thought the singularity would be a line, r=0, t=anything. WHich is spacelike because of the nature of t inside the event horizon...
 
pervect said:
I thought the singularity would be a line, r=0, t=anything. WHich is spacelike because of the nature of t inside the event horizon...

If you construct a sequence of spacelike surfaces approaching the singularity (which is normally not part of the metric) every such 3-surface embeds 2-spheres; the closer to the singularity, the smaller (in area) the 2-spheres. Each of these 3-surfaces is not embeddable in Euclidean 3-space, so just calling the singularity a line is abstracting from these topological issues.
 
pervect said:
I thought the singularity would be a line, r=0, t=anything. WHich is spacelike because of the nature of t inside the event horizon...

The dimensionality of the set missing from a particular coordinate space can depend on the choice of coordinates; the dimensionality of the same set can be different if you pick a different set of coordinates . For example, the origin of a Euclidean plane in Cartesian coordinates is a set in the coordinate space with dimension zero, but it you switch to polar coordinates it's a set with dimension 1.

In the example of the Euclidean plane, we can resolve this ambiguity because we have a metric that is well defined at the origin. But in the Schwarzschild spacetime we don't have a metric at the singularity, so it's not obvious to me that this ambiguity can be resolved.

Say we have a black hole that forms by collapse from a spherically symmetric shell of mass. The shell is two-dimensional before the event horizon forms. If it's two-dimensional the instant before the event horizon forms, then I think it's clearly two-dimensional the instant after. I think it then remains two-dimensional up until the instant before the singularity forms. But does it then retain its original dimensionality once it becomes the singularity? I don't see any obvious way to answer this question, because we don't have a metric at the singularity.

This is reminiscent of the difficulties involved in defining whether a singularity is timelike or spacelike. It's not a point-set on which the metric is defined, so there is no obvious, simple way to define it. To define it, you have to go through various complicated indirect ideas like discussing light-cones near the singularity. See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974IAUS...64...82P . Maybe this approach can be adapted in order to define the dimensionality of a singularity.

We had a thread on a similar topic before: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511813
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K