Must a black hole be a point singularity?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether a black hole must be a point singularity, with participants debating the role of radiation pressure during star collapse. It is argued that the extreme temperatures and radiation generated could prevent singularity formation, as radiation pressure increases faster than gravitational force. The conversation also touches on the implications of general relativity (GR) and quantum gravity, suggesting that a unified theory may eliminate singularities from current models. Participants express skepticism about the existence of singularities, viewing them as indicators of theoretical breakdowns. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of the interplay between mass, radiation, and gravitational forces in black hole formation.
  • #61
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?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
  • #63
I think you'll find that I converted your cm value to m.
 
  • #64
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?
 
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #67
"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.
 
  • #68
Bernie G said:
"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?
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
Bernie G said:
in my humble opinion

And there it is, this is a personal theory and does not belong here.
 
  • #71
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K