Spagettification and a singularity

In summary, the two particles that are falling towards the singularity will eventually end up at the same point, even though the distance between them increases along the way.
  • #141
HansH said:
I was wondering if this spagettification process continues no matter how close you are to the singularity.
Yes, it does. Your reading of the previous post about this is correct.

HansH said:
probably I am a bit confused about the term 'size' and where we can speak of a 'size' of something.
Whether we can do this, and what "size" means, depends on the something and the circumstances.

At some point during the spaghettification process any kind of internal structure that determines a "size" of anything will be destroyed. For example, at some point atoms will get torn apart by it, so we can no longer speak of the size of atoms since there aren't any.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
BoraxZ said:
two particles falling in after one another
The general topic in this thread is spaghettification, i.e., an object falls in, initially, as a single object, and the discussion is about what happens to it as it approaches the singularity--it gradually gets torn apart by increasing spacetime curvature. Two originally separate particles falling in one after the other is not quite the same scenario.
 
  • #143
PeterDonis said:
The general topic in this thread is spaghettification, i.e., an object falls in, initially, as a single object, and the discussion is about what happens to it as it approaches the singularity--it gradually gets torn apart by increasing spacetime curvature. Two originally separate particles falling in one after the other is not quite the same scenario.
Yes. But aren't two particles starting at the same event, while holding one back, after which you release it, the same as an extended object?
 
  • #144
BoraxZ said:
ren't two particles starting at the same event, while holding one back, after which you release it, the same as an extended object?
No. An extended object has interactions between its particles.
 
  • #145
What time is it inside the hole?
 
  • #146
PeterDonis said:
No. An extended object has interactions between its particles.
Yes, that's true. But these are overcome inside so they end up spatially separated still. But less indeed.
 
  • #147
PeterDonis said:
No. An extended object has interactions between its particles.
Will even a proton get ripped apart? Or maybe even quarks (when there are preons inside it)?
 
  • #148
BoraxZ said:
two particles falling in after one another end up at the same time
which time?
 
  • #149
BoraxZ said:
What time is it inside the hole?
This question is not answerable. Please do not clutter the thread with pointless questions.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #150
HansH said:
which time?
He means the singularity, which is a moment of time.
 
  • #151
BoraxZ said:
Will even a proton get ripped apart? Or maybe even quarks (when there are preons inside it)?
The classical model in GR that we are using here doesn't include any quantum structure of matter, so it's not really possible to answer this question. We would need a theory of quantum gravity. Such a theory might well eliminate the singularity, though.
 
  • #152
BoraxZ said:
Will even a proton get ripped apart? Or maybe even quarks (when there are preons inside it)?
probably a different topic but hope this can be answered with a single yes or no: according to quantum mechanics smal things cannot have an exact position. so the term 'ripping apart' says something about position in relation to a strong gravitational field. Is there anything known about theory that predict to expect a particle or subatomic particle at a certain position in case of strong gravity? or is that just the gap in the theory so far we need a quantum gravity theory for?
 
  • #153
HansH said:
according to quantum mechanics smal things cannot have an exact position
Yes, that's why I cautioned in my post just now that we are using a classical GR model in this thread and can't really answer questions about quantum objects and how they behave near the singularity. We would need a theory of quantum gravity to do that.

HansH said:
is that just the gap in the theory so far we need a quantum gravity theory for?
Yes. See above.
 
  • #154
ok then still one question about this quantum gravity: suppose we would have such theory. Then it probably result in the effect that the mass in the singularity spreads out to a certain distance according to some statistical propabilty function. So then you could assign a kind of effective size to that singularity so then time would not stop as curvature does not really get infinite, as then the singularity is replaced by a volume with an effective mass distribution so preventing finite mass in an infinite small area. Is that the direction modern science thinks into?
 
  • Like
Likes BoraxZ
  • #155
HansH said:
Then it probably result in the effect that the mass in the singularity spreads out to a certain distance according to some statistical propabilty function.
Particles are spread out spatially on the line r=0. Only in the angular directions they get crammed.

I think in the classical picture point-like particles are themselves tiny black holes. If you smear these over space... I don't know what happens
PeterDonis said:
This question is not answerable. Please do not clutter the thread with pointless questions.
Okay. Let me ask it differently. Doesn't each position in space have an imaginary clock running on that position (while both position and time are relative, i.e , there are no absolute clocks ticking)? I mean, it's spaceTIME. Or can we only say how fast that clock is running, like a pendulum, without actually keeping time, while particles arriving in that position (of in the hole) have an actual age? If so, is the hole made up of particles for which different proper times have elapsed (the "youngest", if not photons, having an age of about the time it took from the big bang to the formation of the hole)?
 
Last edited:
  • #156
HansH said:
suppose we would have such theory.
That doesn't help at all in answering questions unless we know what the theory says. Which of course we don't. So your questions in this post are not answerable.
 
  • #157
BoraxZ said:
I think in the classical picture point-like particles are themselves tiny black holes.
This is speculation. Please do not clutter the thread with speculation.
 
  • #158
BoraxZ said:
Doesn't each position in space have an imaginary clock running on that position (while both position and time are relative, i.e , there are no absolute clocks ticking)?
No.
 
  • #159
PeterDonis said:
No.
So the clocks run only on timelike (massive) particles, while the spacetime they are in determines how fast their clocks tick? Can we say then that spacetime is filled with pendulums (and measure sticks), showing the pace of time (and spatial metric, as opposed to clocks and odometers)?
Or better maybe, with a metric...

Space has no age. Even not in the space-age.
 
Last edited:
  • #160
BoraxZ said:
Doesn't each position in space have an imaginary clock running on that position (while both position and time are relative, i.e , there are no absolute clocks ticking)?
No. You can lay out an array of clocks if you like, but this involves you making a choice about how to zero them, which is equivalent to you choosing a definition of space. Notionally we can do this, and it's often the methodology for associating the abstract numbers of a coordinate system with measurable things in a spacetime. But something you choose can't be a natural property of spacetime.
 
  • #161
PeterDonis said:
No.
PeterDonis said:
He means the singularity, which is a moment of time.
I know, so which moment in time are we talking about then? or is it the moment in time that the singularity was formed from a collapsing star? But then what about particles falling in later? I assume they cannot fall towards an earlier moment in time.
 
  • #162
HansH said:
I know, so which moment in time are we talking about then? or is it the moment in time that the singularity was formed from a collapsing star? But then what about particles falling in later? I assume they cannot fall towards an earlier moment in time.
All timelike paths that cross the horizon terminate on the singularity. It is the future once you've crossed the horizon, and that's the moment in time we're talking about. It's always in your future wherever and whenever you are, but once you cross the horizon there's no part of your future that doesn't include the singularity.
 
  • #163
Yes that was also what I think, but then how can you speak about 1 moment in time, because I assume it is then all moments in time as set by the history of all particles fallen into the black hole and starting withe the moment in tim that the singularity was formed.
 
  • #164
HansH said:
Yes that was also what I think, but then how can you speak about 1 moment in time, because I assume it is then all moments in time as set by the history of all particles fallen into the black hole and starting withe the moment in tim that the singularity was formed.
The singularity is a spacelike line, and calling it "a moment in time" is a reasonable description. But spacetime inside a black hole is extremely curved. Fundamentally this goes back to something I said on the first page, that the direction of decreasing ##r## is timelike inside the horizon but spacelike outside. Trying to work out "when" the singularity is from outside the hole doesn't really make sense.
 
  • #165
You can work out the minimum proper time it would take you to get to the singularity from any event, but that depends on your available delta v and can be arbitrarily small given arbitrarily large acceleration. And you can work out the maximum proper time to get to the singularity, but again it depends on your available delta v and can be infinite.

Once you've crossed the horizon, though, you have a maximum of 15##\mu##s per solar mass of black hole before you reach the singularity.
 
  • #166
jbriggs444 said:
You seem to want to define a time coordinate such that the singularity is assigned one.
It's easy to assign individual points on the singularity a time coordinate. But it might not be the same time coordinate for all points on the singularity.

jbriggs444 said:
It is not clear to me whether any coordinate system exists that has the required properties -- spanning all of a black hole space-time and having a monotone increasing time coordinate.
Kruskal coordinates have both of these properties. However, they assign a different time coordinate to different points on the singularity. I'm not aware of any chart that has all three properties--the two you mention here, and assigning the same time coordinate to all points on the singularity.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71 and jbriggs444
  • #168
After moderator review, this thread will remain closed.
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
916
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
785
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top