Spagettification and a singularity

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter HansH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Singularity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of spaghettification and singularities in the context of black holes, exploring the nature of singularities, the behavior of particles approaching them, and the implications of spacetime curvature. Participants seek to clarify these concepts through thought experiments and technical explanations.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a singularity is assumed to be a point without dimensions, while others argue that the Schwarzschild singularity is more accurately described as a line, akin to a moment in time.
  • There is a discussion about how two particles falling into a black hole experience increasing distance from each other due to differing accelerations, raising questions about how they can arrive at the same singularity.
  • Some participants propose that the terms 'distance' and 'size' lose meaning when discussing singularities, suggesting that curvature might be a better framework for understanding these concepts.
  • One participant questions whether spaghettification and singularities are in contradiction, noting that spaghettification occurs outside the event horizon of small black holes and is related to tidal forces.
  • There are inquiries about the interpretation of Kruskal diagrams and how different starting points affect the arrival at the singularity, with discussions on the meaning of coordinates in this context.
  • Some participants express confusion over the use of terms like "distorted distance" and seek clarification on the implications of coordinates in Schwarzschild and Kruskal coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of singularities and the implications of spaghettification, with no consensus reached on these topics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of distances and coordinates in the context of singularities.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from the complex nature of spacetime curvature and the definitions of coordinates, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: vanhees71 and jbriggs444
  • #168
After moderator review, this thread will remain closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What is the Connection Between Black Holes and the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad Does Time Drive Black Hole Travelers to a Central Singularity?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
High School Gravity and speed of information for orbiting planets
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
High School Black Hole SHM: Gravitational Force
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Temporal Gradients at Event Horizons of Black Holes
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School Rotating disc: tidal relativity across surface of disc
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
615
High School Is there an inside to a Black Hole?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
High School An Interpretation of the Geometry of Space-Time Inside a BH
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School How do Black Holes Grow? A Far-Away Observer's Perspective
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K