Must a black hole be a point singularity?

[Bernie G]

I certainly agree that the gravity from a massive enough sphere of radiation can contain that radiation. I don't buy that gravity causes that sphere of radiation to collapse to point.

Einstein didn't believe in a point singularity. We should consider his opinion on anything related to conventional physics or GR or whatever. If a theorem proves it for you I can respect and value that position but I don't have to believe it.

 

[nismaratwork]

I certainly agree that the gravity from a massive enough sphere of radiation can contain that radiation. I don't buy that gravity causes that sphere of radiation to collapse to point.

Einstein didn't believe in a point singularity. We should consider his opinion on anything related to conventional physics or GR or whatever. If a theorem proves it for you I can respect and value that position but I don't have to believe it.

From what I understood you've been arguing that the mechanism which keeps a singularity from forming is radiation pressure, which is what everyone is trying to explain makes no sense. If you simply assert that a singularity is probably an artifact of a breakdown of GR at that point (and any theory really) I don't think you'll find much argument.

 

[Bernie G]

You said there is nothing stronger than gravity inside the horizon. Kind of true. I'm saying in a sphere of radiation, pressure driven by density will increase faster than gravity until you reach the surface of the sphere. Containment is achieved at the surface of the sphere when the gravitational force has increased to the point where it contains radiation. I don't think this requires the sphere to collapse.

 

[Ich]

I'm saying in a sphere of radiation, pressure driven by density will increase faster than gravity until you reach the surface of the sphere.

But surely you understand that you are in no way qualified to make such a statement? That's not a problem, I mean, all of us are not qualified to make strong assertions in most fields of science or even daily life. But then, most of us don't come to, say, the egyptology forums claiming that these faroahs surely built their cones upside down.

If a theorem proves it for you I can respect and value that position but I don't have to believe it.

Of course you have to believe it. Mathematical theorems are not points of view. This is not humanities here.
Further, as nismaratwork said, no theorem within GR could prove the existence of a point singularity, as this is exactly where GR breaks down. Nobody here claimed the existence of a point singularity.
All we're saying is that, in the context of GR, radiation cannot halt the final collapse.

 

[Bernie G]

Was Einstein qualified? He didn't believe it.

 

[JaredJames]

We are very close to bordering on personal theories here.

You said there is nothing stronger than gravity inside the horizon. Kind of true.

Why is this "kind of true"? Do you have evidence which says otherwise? If so, please do cite it. (Again, this may come down to my own lack of understanding here so if anyone can tell me of something stronger than gravity I would be very interested.)

Einstein produced a series of theories which can be shown to be mathematically correct. You are making little more than assumptions based on your own potentially misguided understandings. Are you really comparing yourself to Einstein?

 

[Ich]

Was Einstein qualified? He didn't believe it.

He didn't believe what? References?
Most people don't like that GR leads to singularities. So what?

Now please make your point:
1. You don't believe the theorems and all the fancy maths that prove you are wrong
2. You question the validity of GR within its region of applicability
3. ...?

You know, 1. and 2. are no options here at PF.

 

[Bernie G]

Question: If somehow 1,000,000 kilograms of matter was contained in 1 cubic centimeter, and this matter was entirely converted into energy, and somehow contained in the 1 cubic centimeter, what do you think the pressure would be? Any thoughts would be welcome.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I get 9.0x10^22 Joules for the energy value. (Using c = 3.0x10^8m/s).

Now I assume you've just gone E = PV and rearranged to give you the volume, which I get to be 9.0x10^24 Pa.

Somehow, I feel there is something wrong with the maths there.

 

[Bernie G]

Yes, it might be better if the calculation was all in meters. New question: If somehow 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms of matter was contained in 1 cubic meter, and this matter was entirely converted into energy, and somehow contained in the 1 cubic meter, what do you think the pressure would be?

 

[Bernie G]

Even better question: If somehow 10^18 kilograms of matter was contained in 1 cubic meter, and this matter was entirely converted into energy, and somehow contained in the 1 cubic meter, what do you think the pressure would be?

 

[Bernie G]

There might be an answer to: Why don't purple monkeys fly out of my butt? When I was in college a philosophy instructor taught that everything will happen if you wait a long enough time.

 

[JaredJames]

I think you'll find that I converted your cm value to m.

 

[Bernie G]

I have 2 squirrels jumping on me and can't even get m^2 or m^3 right. Well, actually that's not true... I get m^2 right 50% of the time.

So what's your pressure estimate if 10^18 kilograms of matter contained in 1 cubic meter was entirely converted into energy, and somehow contained in the 1 cubic meter?

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not going to sit here all night and play number games with you. It is your job to show how your hypothesis disagrees with current theory and your job to back it up. You need to show us your numbers and not just make wild claims and expect everyone else to do the maths for you.

Now please state your point and explain why it differs to current theory, and then cite sources which prove / agree with your hypothesis. If you cannot do this then you are violating PF guidelines.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not going to sit here all night and play number games with you. It is your job to show how your hypothesis disagrees with current theory and your job to back it up. You need to show us your numbers and not just make wild claims and expect everyone else to do the maths for you.

Now please state your point and explain why it differs to current theory, and then cite sources which prove / agree with your hypothesis. If you cannot do this then you are violating PF guidelines.

I think you're right, this is clamshell with proper line formatting and prose instead of limerick!

Bernie: You've compared your position to Einstein, you've made declarative statements that are ABSURD without references, and you avoid clear questions. At this point, you sound like a crackpot trying to (less and less) obliquely forward a personal theory. In short, purple monkeys may fly out of your butt if you take enough LSD, but radiation isn't expect by ANY theory to behave in the manner you describe within an event horizon. PERIOD. If you have something direct to confront that well accepted notion, it's time to start giving sources, a paper... ANYTHING other than another post that gives me a damned headache.

 

[Bernie G]

"You've compared your position to Einstein"

Come on. What I said was that Einstein didn't believe in a point singularity. Thats where the comparison, if any, ends. Calm down please. This is not the governor's election in New York.

 

[nismaratwork]

"You've compared your position to Einstein"

Come on. What I said was that Einstein didn't believe in a point singularity. Thats where the comparison, if any, ends. Calm down please. This is not the governor's election in New York.

So that's a no to references?

 

[Bernie G]

Its a different idea. No references that I know of.

There might tangental similarities to ideas like quark–gluon plasma, but in my humble opinion even quarks would disintegrate at these high energies.

I'm taking the weekend off.

 

[JaredJames]

in my humble opinion

And there it is, this is a personal theory and does not belong here.

 

[George Jones]

I have closed this thread.

Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

to which everyone who registers here agrees, in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.