When a Black hole is made is ther a certain amount of time needed for

phildoe
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
When a Black hole is made is ther a certain amount of time needed for a singularity to form. It has infinite density i asume this means it has an area of 0 since it must have a finite mass. Is this theory plausible with the belief that ther in no limit to how small something can be?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Asserting that there is "no limit to how small something can be" only means that there is not POSITIVE lower limit on size. If that were true, then it would be impossible to have size 0.
 


The formation of a black hole and the formation of a singularity are two separate processes. A black hole is formed when a massive star collapses under its own gravity, creating a region of spacetime from which nothing, including light, can escape. The singularity is the point of infinite density at the center of a black hole.

There is no set amount of time required for a black hole to form, as it depends on the mass and structure of the collapsing star. However, once the black hole is formed, the singularity is also formed at the same time.

The concept of infinite density and zero volume is a result of our current understanding of the laws of physics. It is not necessarily a literal representation, but rather a mathematical description of the extreme conditions within a black hole. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that a black hole has a finite mass and zero volume.

As for the belief that there is no limit to how small something can be, this is a topic of ongoing research and debate in physics. It is possible that there may be a limit to how small something can be, but this is still being explored and is not fully understood at this time.

Overall, the theory of black holes and singularities is based on our current understanding of physics and is supported by observational evidence. While there may be some limitations to our understanding, it is still a plausible explanation for the formation of these enigmatic objects in the universe.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
574
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
43
Views
3K
Back
Top