BH singularity? Infinite density

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












2















How can the density of a region of space go from finite density to infinite when there are no numbers larger than any Aleph0 number but smaller than any Aleph1 number (no decimal point in front of it, of course)? Aren't Planck volumes and strings designed to sidestep infinities?



My point there, stated differently, is how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap? And did he not prove that none was constructible/possible?



The entropy of the visible universe is ~(10^122)^2, if I'm not too far off the mark. This is a stupendous number but no closer to infinity than any other integer or real. And there is no room in it to tuck a singularity away.



In simpler terms. Our BH has a finite mass. If it has a region of infinite density, that region must be infinitesimal. But the Planck length is the lower limit on the size of regions of space. There are, therefore, no points in space, no infinitesimals, only punctoids, my term of convenience, the utility of which may become obvious in future posts.And no infinities.










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3





    Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:36











  • "Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

    – george lastrapes
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:14






  • 1





    In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

    – Paul Sinclair
    Dec 30 '18 at 5:06











  • Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:04






  • 1





    "how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

    – knzhou
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:05















2















How can the density of a region of space go from finite density to infinite when there are no numbers larger than any Aleph0 number but smaller than any Aleph1 number (no decimal point in front of it, of course)? Aren't Planck volumes and strings designed to sidestep infinities?



My point there, stated differently, is how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap? And did he not prove that none was constructible/possible?



The entropy of the visible universe is ~(10^122)^2, if I'm not too far off the mark. This is a stupendous number but no closer to infinity than any other integer or real. And there is no room in it to tuck a singularity away.



In simpler terms. Our BH has a finite mass. If it has a region of infinite density, that region must be infinitesimal. But the Planck length is the lower limit on the size of regions of space. There are, therefore, no points in space, no infinitesimals, only punctoids, my term of convenience, the utility of which may become obvious in future posts.And no infinities.










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 3





    Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:36











  • "Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

    – george lastrapes
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:14






  • 1





    In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

    – Paul Sinclair
    Dec 30 '18 at 5:06











  • Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:04






  • 1





    "how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

    – knzhou
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:05













2












2








2


1






How can the density of a region of space go from finite density to infinite when there are no numbers larger than any Aleph0 number but smaller than any Aleph1 number (no decimal point in front of it, of course)? Aren't Planck volumes and strings designed to sidestep infinities?



My point there, stated differently, is how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap? And did he not prove that none was constructible/possible?



The entropy of the visible universe is ~(10^122)^2, if I'm not too far off the mark. This is a stupendous number but no closer to infinity than any other integer or real. And there is no room in it to tuck a singularity away.



In simpler terms. Our BH has a finite mass. If it has a region of infinite density, that region must be infinitesimal. But the Planck length is the lower limit on the size of regions of space. There are, therefore, no points in space, no infinitesimals, only punctoids, my term of convenience, the utility of which may become obvious in future posts.And no infinities.










share|cite|improve this question
















How can the density of a region of space go from finite density to infinite when there are no numbers larger than any Aleph0 number but smaller than any Aleph1 number (no decimal point in front of it, of course)? Aren't Planck volumes and strings designed to sidestep infinities?



My point there, stated differently, is how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap? And did he not prove that none was constructible/possible?



The entropy of the visible universe is ~(10^122)^2, if I'm not too far off the mark. This is a stupendous number but no closer to infinity than any other integer or real. And there is no room in it to tuck a singularity away.



In simpler terms. Our BH has a finite mass. If it has a region of infinite density, that region must be infinitesimal. But the Planck length is the lower limit on the size of regions of space. There are, therefore, no points in space, no infinitesimals, only punctoids, my term of convenience, the utility of which may become obvious in future posts.And no infinities.







general-relativity black-holes density singularities






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 30 '18 at 8:51







george lastrapes

















asked Dec 29 '18 at 18:43









george lastrapesgeorge lastrapes

325




325







  • 3





    Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:36











  • "Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

    – george lastrapes
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:14






  • 1





    In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

    – Paul Sinclair
    Dec 30 '18 at 5:06











  • Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:04






  • 1





    "how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

    – knzhou
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:05












  • 3





    Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:36











  • "Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

    – george lastrapes
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:14






  • 1





    In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

    – Paul Sinclair
    Dec 30 '18 at 5:06











  • Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 30 '18 at 6:04






  • 1





    "how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

    – knzhou
    Dec 30 '18 at 13:05







3




3





Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

– N. Steinle
Dec 29 '18 at 22:36





Can you clarify your thinking: are you asking where does the infinite density of a BH lie in the hierarchies of mathematical infinities?

– N. Steinle
Dec 29 '18 at 22:36













"Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

– george lastrapes
Dec 29 '18 at 23:14





"Worauf man kann sprechen nicht, Darauf muss man schweigen." But I will, anyway--1)exact center of a nonrotating BH? 2) Distributed over the surface? 3) There is no singularity, nothing in the universe is infinite, per the Planck units, and as string theory seems to suggest. When a theory predicts an infinity, that is a cry for help.

– george lastrapes
Dec 29 '18 at 23:14




1




1





In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

– Paul Sinclair
Dec 30 '18 at 5:06





In addition to the answers provided, let me point out that you are conflating two different concepts of infinity. The aleph numbers, $aleph_0, aleph_1, ...$, are cardinal infinities, which apply to counting discrete objects. However the infinite density is a continuum infinity, involving measurement over a continuum of values. These are distinct mathematical concepts.

– Paul Sinclair
Dec 30 '18 at 5:06













Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

– N. Steinle
Dec 30 '18 at 6:04





Thank you. Indeed, divergences tell us quite clearly where a theory fails. Conceivably, from a cosmological Copernican principle, the universe itself might be infinite. @PaulSinclair $aleph_1$ is the continuum infinity, if by continuum you mean "set of real numbers."

– N. Steinle
Dec 30 '18 at 6:04




1




1





"how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

– knzhou
Dec 30 '18 at 13:05





"how can the density go from finite to infinite when there is a 'no-number gap' between finite and infinite, with Cantor losing his mind contemplating that gap?" Don't get confused just because several distinct things have similar names. The infinities Cantor was contemplating have nothing to do with the infinities here.

– knzhou
Dec 30 '18 at 13:05










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















13














Most physicists believe that the prediction of an infinite-density singularity (though note that for a Schwarzschild spacetime, the singularity is a moment in time, NOT a point in space) is a flaw in general relativity rather than a real physical thing that happens, and that at some density roughly around $m_p/ell_p^3$, where $m_p$ is the planck mass, and $ell_p$ is the planck length, quantum gravitational effects will take over and prevent a true singularity from forming. Obviously, without a working quantum theory of gravity, no one can know exactly how this happens, but this is the expectation.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 20:51






  • 1





    @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:05











  • Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:28







  • 1





    Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 30 '18 at 14:22


















4














Physics uses mathematical models of the real world. The best models are simpler, more accurate, and/or have broader scope that other models. General relativity is currently the best (simplest, most accurate, broadest scope) well-tested model that we have for describing gravitational phenomena. However, any time any model predicts a "singularity" (or "infinite density", etc), that's a sign that we have exceeded the limits of that model's validity. That's just as true for general relativity as it is for any other model.



Even ignoring singularities, we have other good reasons to think that general relativity is only approximately valid and that it breaks down in some extreme circumstances that are currently beyond our ability to explore experimentally. The black hole information paradox is a famous example. The basic problem is that general relativity doesn't account for quantum physics, and one of the lessons of the Black Hole Information Paradox (when analyzed carefully) is that any way of reconciling general relativity with quantum physics will necessarily require some radical change(s) in our current understanding of nature.



General relativity is not expected to be a good approximation under the extreme conditions where it would predict a singularity, and the black hole information paradox (and the related firewall paradox) gives us reasons to suspect that it might break down under even less extreme conditions. According to [1],




The black hole information paradox forces us into a strange situation: we must find a way to break the semiclassical approximation in a domain where no quantum gravity effects would normally be expected.




(In this excerpt, the "semiclassical approximation" is an approximation in which gravity is treated as a non-quantum thing and everything else is treated as quantum. That's the approximation we use today to describe everyday situations involving both gravity and quantum effects, like when individual atoms fall under the influence of earth's gravity. We don't need a theory of "quantum gravity" for that kind of thing, because the gravitational field itself is not exhibiting significant quantum behavior in that case.)



Page 2 in same paper summarizes the black hole information paradox like this:




...in any theory of gravity, it is hard to prevent the formation of black holes. Once we have a black hole, an explicit computation shows that the hole slowly radiates energy by a quantum mechanical process. But the details of this process are such that when the hole disappears, the radiation it leaves behind cannot be attributed any quantum state at all. This is a violation of quantum mechanics. Many years of effort could provide no clear resolution of this problem. The robustness of the paradox stems from the fact that it uses no details of the actual theory of quantum gravity. Thus one of our assumptions about low energy physics must be in error. This, in turn, implies that resolving the paradox should teach us something fundamentally new about the way that physics works.





Reference:



[1] Mathur (2012), "Black Holes and Beyond," http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0776






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 1





    From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

    – João Bosco
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:21











  • @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

    – Cham
    Dec 31 '18 at 22:08











  • @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 3:16











  • @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 23:22











  • Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

    – Cham
    Jan 2 at 1:16


















0














There is no singularity associated with a Black-hole. At the final nanosecond in the formation of a black hole, essentially all of the matter confined within the envelope of a developing Schwarzschild sphere (whatever its size) can no longer be transformed into particle kinetic-energy, i.e., particle momentum.



Special relativity does NOT allow an inertial system to exceed the speed of light; and in the interior of a collapsing star, particles colliding at speeds approaching that of light cannot absorb a further increase in the momentum produced by gravitational forces. At this point, gravitational energy is transformed directly into radiation (entropy) rather than particle momentum.



This critical event, representing a change-in-state from matter to radiation, is preceded by an exponential increase in the momentum of particles confined within the volume of a contracting star (or any object). As particle velocities approach the speed of light, and as distance and time between particle collisions approach zero, the energy-density of a collapsing object will reach a limit where the transformation of gravitational force can no longer be defined in terms of particle collisions.



As the distance between colliding particles gets smaller, quantum mechanical factors require that the uncertainty in particle momentum correspondingly gets larger. At a critical point in this combination of events, the collision-distance between particles has decreased to a nanometer range that corresponds to the frequency of particle collisions; and particle interactions can be expressed in terms of a series of discrete quantum-mechanical wave-functions (distance and time between particle collisions) that approach the restricting value of 'h' (the Planck constant), producing a potential, quantum-mechanical catastrophe.



In order to preserve thermodynamic continuity, the thermodynamics of the system must change; consequently, particle matter is transformed into radiant energy by means of quantum mechanical processes. Gravitational energy is now expressed as a function of the total radiation-energy distributed over the surface of the ensuing Schwarzschild sphere, and any additional energy impacting the Black-hole produces an expansion of the Schwarzschild radius, while maintaining a constant energy-density, and a constant boundary acceleration, corresponding to a constant (Unruh) temperature.



A clue to the transformation of kinetic energy to radiation is seen in the function: e^hf/KT (from the Planck "key" to the ultraviolet paradox). In this function, particle kinetic-energy, "KT", increases due to an increase in particle velocity and effective particle temperature; the frequency of particle collisions, represented by "hf", increases with particle density due to increased gravitational confinement within a developing Schwarzschild object (Black Hole). But temperature and frequency do not rise to infinity, as one might expect from the Planck relationship.



The formation of a Schwarzschild boundary is coincidental with a maximum particle acceleration and a maximum temperature. This critical event represents the maximum energy-density (rather than the maximum energy) permitted by nature. Temperatures cannot rise beyond this critical point. Instead, these variables now become Black-hole constants and are conserved in all Black-Holes, regardless of their size and total energy. Subsequent to the formation of a Black-hole, temperature, acceleration, gravity and energy-density remain constant at their maximum values...even as more energy is added and the Schwarzschild envelope grows correspondingly larger.






share|cite|improve this answer
























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451045%2fbh-singularity-infinite-density%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    13














    Most physicists believe that the prediction of an infinite-density singularity (though note that for a Schwarzschild spacetime, the singularity is a moment in time, NOT a point in space) is a flaw in general relativity rather than a real physical thing that happens, and that at some density roughly around $m_p/ell_p^3$, where $m_p$ is the planck mass, and $ell_p$ is the planck length, quantum gravitational effects will take over and prevent a true singularity from forming. Obviously, without a working quantum theory of gravity, no one can know exactly how this happens, but this is the expectation.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 20:51






    • 1





      @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:05











    • Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:28







    • 1





      Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 30 '18 at 14:22















    13














    Most physicists believe that the prediction of an infinite-density singularity (though note that for a Schwarzschild spacetime, the singularity is a moment in time, NOT a point in space) is a flaw in general relativity rather than a real physical thing that happens, and that at some density roughly around $m_p/ell_p^3$, where $m_p$ is the planck mass, and $ell_p$ is the planck length, quantum gravitational effects will take over and prevent a true singularity from forming. Obviously, without a working quantum theory of gravity, no one can know exactly how this happens, but this is the expectation.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 20:51






    • 1





      @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:05











    • Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:28







    • 1





      Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 30 '18 at 14:22













    13












    13








    13







    Most physicists believe that the prediction of an infinite-density singularity (though note that for a Schwarzschild spacetime, the singularity is a moment in time, NOT a point in space) is a flaw in general relativity rather than a real physical thing that happens, and that at some density roughly around $m_p/ell_p^3$, where $m_p$ is the planck mass, and $ell_p$ is the planck length, quantum gravitational effects will take over and prevent a true singularity from forming. Obviously, without a working quantum theory of gravity, no one can know exactly how this happens, but this is the expectation.






    share|cite|improve this answer













    Most physicists believe that the prediction of an infinite-density singularity (though note that for a Schwarzschild spacetime, the singularity is a moment in time, NOT a point in space) is a flaw in general relativity rather than a real physical thing that happens, and that at some density roughly around $m_p/ell_p^3$, where $m_p$ is the planck mass, and $ell_p$ is the planck length, quantum gravitational effects will take over and prevent a true singularity from forming. Obviously, without a working quantum theory of gravity, no one can know exactly how this happens, but this is the expectation.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:19









    Jerry SchirmerJerry Schirmer

    31k257104




    31k257104












    • The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 20:51






    • 1





      @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:05











    • Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:28







    • 1





      Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 30 '18 at 14:22

















    • The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 20:51






    • 1





      @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:05











    • Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

      – N. Steinle
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:28







    • 1





      Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

      – Jerry Schirmer
      Dec 30 '18 at 14:22
















    The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 20:51





    The Schw singularity is a physical singularity at $r = 0 $ where $r$ is the radial coordinate in Schw coordinates. How is that a singularity in the time coordinate?

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 20:51




    1




    1





    @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:05





    @N.Steinle : because the Schwarzschild $r$ coordinate is timelike in the interior of the horizon,.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:05













    Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:28






    Ah, thank you for clarifying that you specifically refer to the interior metric of the Schw BH.

    – N. Steinle
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:28





    1




    1





    Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 30 '18 at 14:22





    Sure, but it's not about what I meant. The singularity lives inside of the horizon. For a schwarzschild spacetime, this makes it a spacelike surface. Note that this is NOT true of a Kerr-Nordstrom spacetime.

    – Jerry Schirmer
    Dec 30 '18 at 14:22











    4














    Physics uses mathematical models of the real world. The best models are simpler, more accurate, and/or have broader scope that other models. General relativity is currently the best (simplest, most accurate, broadest scope) well-tested model that we have for describing gravitational phenomena. However, any time any model predicts a "singularity" (or "infinite density", etc), that's a sign that we have exceeded the limits of that model's validity. That's just as true for general relativity as it is for any other model.



    Even ignoring singularities, we have other good reasons to think that general relativity is only approximately valid and that it breaks down in some extreme circumstances that are currently beyond our ability to explore experimentally. The black hole information paradox is a famous example. The basic problem is that general relativity doesn't account for quantum physics, and one of the lessons of the Black Hole Information Paradox (when analyzed carefully) is that any way of reconciling general relativity with quantum physics will necessarily require some radical change(s) in our current understanding of nature.



    General relativity is not expected to be a good approximation under the extreme conditions where it would predict a singularity, and the black hole information paradox (and the related firewall paradox) gives us reasons to suspect that it might break down under even less extreme conditions. According to [1],




    The black hole information paradox forces us into a strange situation: we must find a way to break the semiclassical approximation in a domain where no quantum gravity effects would normally be expected.




    (In this excerpt, the "semiclassical approximation" is an approximation in which gravity is treated as a non-quantum thing and everything else is treated as quantum. That's the approximation we use today to describe everyday situations involving both gravity and quantum effects, like when individual atoms fall under the influence of earth's gravity. We don't need a theory of "quantum gravity" for that kind of thing, because the gravitational field itself is not exhibiting significant quantum behavior in that case.)



    Page 2 in same paper summarizes the black hole information paradox like this:




    ...in any theory of gravity, it is hard to prevent the formation of black holes. Once we have a black hole, an explicit computation shows that the hole slowly radiates energy by a quantum mechanical process. But the details of this process are such that when the hole disappears, the radiation it leaves behind cannot be attributed any quantum state at all. This is a violation of quantum mechanics. Many years of effort could provide no clear resolution of this problem. The robustness of the paradox stems from the fact that it uses no details of the actual theory of quantum gravity. Thus one of our assumptions about low energy physics must be in error. This, in turn, implies that resolving the paradox should teach us something fundamentally new about the way that physics works.





    Reference:



    [1] Mathur (2012), "Black Holes and Beyond," http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0776






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 1





      From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

      – João Bosco
      Dec 30 '18 at 2:21











    • @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

      – Cham
      Dec 31 '18 at 22:08











    • @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 3:16











    • @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 23:22











    • Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

      – Cham
      Jan 2 at 1:16















    4














    Physics uses mathematical models of the real world. The best models are simpler, more accurate, and/or have broader scope that other models. General relativity is currently the best (simplest, most accurate, broadest scope) well-tested model that we have for describing gravitational phenomena. However, any time any model predicts a "singularity" (or "infinite density", etc), that's a sign that we have exceeded the limits of that model's validity. That's just as true for general relativity as it is for any other model.



    Even ignoring singularities, we have other good reasons to think that general relativity is only approximately valid and that it breaks down in some extreme circumstances that are currently beyond our ability to explore experimentally. The black hole information paradox is a famous example. The basic problem is that general relativity doesn't account for quantum physics, and one of the lessons of the Black Hole Information Paradox (when analyzed carefully) is that any way of reconciling general relativity with quantum physics will necessarily require some radical change(s) in our current understanding of nature.



    General relativity is not expected to be a good approximation under the extreme conditions where it would predict a singularity, and the black hole information paradox (and the related firewall paradox) gives us reasons to suspect that it might break down under even less extreme conditions. According to [1],




    The black hole information paradox forces us into a strange situation: we must find a way to break the semiclassical approximation in a domain where no quantum gravity effects would normally be expected.




    (In this excerpt, the "semiclassical approximation" is an approximation in which gravity is treated as a non-quantum thing and everything else is treated as quantum. That's the approximation we use today to describe everyday situations involving both gravity and quantum effects, like when individual atoms fall under the influence of earth's gravity. We don't need a theory of "quantum gravity" for that kind of thing, because the gravitational field itself is not exhibiting significant quantum behavior in that case.)



    Page 2 in same paper summarizes the black hole information paradox like this:




    ...in any theory of gravity, it is hard to prevent the formation of black holes. Once we have a black hole, an explicit computation shows that the hole slowly radiates energy by a quantum mechanical process. But the details of this process are such that when the hole disappears, the radiation it leaves behind cannot be attributed any quantum state at all. This is a violation of quantum mechanics. Many years of effort could provide no clear resolution of this problem. The robustness of the paradox stems from the fact that it uses no details of the actual theory of quantum gravity. Thus one of our assumptions about low energy physics must be in error. This, in turn, implies that resolving the paradox should teach us something fundamentally new about the way that physics works.





    Reference:



    [1] Mathur (2012), "Black Holes and Beyond," http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0776






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 1





      From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

      – João Bosco
      Dec 30 '18 at 2:21











    • @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

      – Cham
      Dec 31 '18 at 22:08











    • @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 3:16











    • @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 23:22











    • Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

      – Cham
      Jan 2 at 1:16













    4












    4








    4







    Physics uses mathematical models of the real world. The best models are simpler, more accurate, and/or have broader scope that other models. General relativity is currently the best (simplest, most accurate, broadest scope) well-tested model that we have for describing gravitational phenomena. However, any time any model predicts a "singularity" (or "infinite density", etc), that's a sign that we have exceeded the limits of that model's validity. That's just as true for general relativity as it is for any other model.



    Even ignoring singularities, we have other good reasons to think that general relativity is only approximately valid and that it breaks down in some extreme circumstances that are currently beyond our ability to explore experimentally. The black hole information paradox is a famous example. The basic problem is that general relativity doesn't account for quantum physics, and one of the lessons of the Black Hole Information Paradox (when analyzed carefully) is that any way of reconciling general relativity with quantum physics will necessarily require some radical change(s) in our current understanding of nature.



    General relativity is not expected to be a good approximation under the extreme conditions where it would predict a singularity, and the black hole information paradox (and the related firewall paradox) gives us reasons to suspect that it might break down under even less extreme conditions. According to [1],




    The black hole information paradox forces us into a strange situation: we must find a way to break the semiclassical approximation in a domain where no quantum gravity effects would normally be expected.




    (In this excerpt, the "semiclassical approximation" is an approximation in which gravity is treated as a non-quantum thing and everything else is treated as quantum. That's the approximation we use today to describe everyday situations involving both gravity and quantum effects, like when individual atoms fall under the influence of earth's gravity. We don't need a theory of "quantum gravity" for that kind of thing, because the gravitational field itself is not exhibiting significant quantum behavior in that case.)



    Page 2 in same paper summarizes the black hole information paradox like this:




    ...in any theory of gravity, it is hard to prevent the formation of black holes. Once we have a black hole, an explicit computation shows that the hole slowly radiates energy by a quantum mechanical process. But the details of this process are such that when the hole disappears, the radiation it leaves behind cannot be attributed any quantum state at all. This is a violation of quantum mechanics. Many years of effort could provide no clear resolution of this problem. The robustness of the paradox stems from the fact that it uses no details of the actual theory of quantum gravity. Thus one of our assumptions about low energy physics must be in error. This, in turn, implies that resolving the paradox should teach us something fundamentally new about the way that physics works.





    Reference:



    [1] Mathur (2012), "Black Holes and Beyond," http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0776






    share|cite|improve this answer













    Physics uses mathematical models of the real world. The best models are simpler, more accurate, and/or have broader scope that other models. General relativity is currently the best (simplest, most accurate, broadest scope) well-tested model that we have for describing gravitational phenomena. However, any time any model predicts a "singularity" (or "infinite density", etc), that's a sign that we have exceeded the limits of that model's validity. That's just as true for general relativity as it is for any other model.



    Even ignoring singularities, we have other good reasons to think that general relativity is only approximately valid and that it breaks down in some extreme circumstances that are currently beyond our ability to explore experimentally. The black hole information paradox is a famous example. The basic problem is that general relativity doesn't account for quantum physics, and one of the lessons of the Black Hole Information Paradox (when analyzed carefully) is that any way of reconciling general relativity with quantum physics will necessarily require some radical change(s) in our current understanding of nature.



    General relativity is not expected to be a good approximation under the extreme conditions where it would predict a singularity, and the black hole information paradox (and the related firewall paradox) gives us reasons to suspect that it might break down under even less extreme conditions. According to [1],




    The black hole information paradox forces us into a strange situation: we must find a way to break the semiclassical approximation in a domain where no quantum gravity effects would normally be expected.




    (In this excerpt, the "semiclassical approximation" is an approximation in which gravity is treated as a non-quantum thing and everything else is treated as quantum. That's the approximation we use today to describe everyday situations involving both gravity and quantum effects, like when individual atoms fall under the influence of earth's gravity. We don't need a theory of "quantum gravity" for that kind of thing, because the gravitational field itself is not exhibiting significant quantum behavior in that case.)



    Page 2 in same paper summarizes the black hole information paradox like this:




    ...in any theory of gravity, it is hard to prevent the formation of black holes. Once we have a black hole, an explicit computation shows that the hole slowly radiates energy by a quantum mechanical process. But the details of this process are such that when the hole disappears, the radiation it leaves behind cannot be attributed any quantum state at all. This is a violation of quantum mechanics. Many years of effort could provide no clear resolution of this problem. The robustness of the paradox stems from the fact that it uses no details of the actual theory of quantum gravity. Thus one of our assumptions about low energy physics must be in error. This, in turn, implies that resolving the paradox should teach us something fundamentally new about the way that physics works.





    Reference:



    [1] Mathur (2012), "Black Holes and Beyond," http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0776







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:57









    Dan YandDan Yand

    7,96711133




    7,96711133







    • 1





      From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

      – João Bosco
      Dec 30 '18 at 2:21











    • @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

      – Cham
      Dec 31 '18 at 22:08











    • @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 3:16











    • @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 23:22











    • Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

      – Cham
      Jan 2 at 1:16












    • 1





      From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

      – João Bosco
      Dec 30 '18 at 2:21











    • @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

      – Cham
      Dec 31 '18 at 22:08











    • @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 3:16











    • @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

      – Cham
      Jan 1 at 23:22











    • Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

      – Cham
      Jan 2 at 1:16







    1




    1





    From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

    – João Bosco
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:21





    From a distant observer's point of view, objects in free fall to a black hole, seem to brake asymptotically near the event horizon, even considering the irresistible action of a possible singularity at this place. This observer does not see these objects crossing the event horizon. For him there is no event horizon, no Hawking radiation, no paradox of information, no singularity, and no black hole, as Hawking admitted in 2014. It would be simpler if we accepted that the black hole has only one side, the outside. I think that every black hole can be only a gravitacional sphericall shell.

    – João Bosco
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:21













    @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

    – Cham
    Dec 31 '18 at 22:08





    @JoãoBosco, the observer in free fall would have a very different opinion than the outside aysmptotic (static) observer. The falling guy will encounter the singularity.

    – Cham
    Dec 31 '18 at 22:08













    @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 3:16





    @JoãoBosco, what you wrote isn't true. The falling observer will cross the event horizon without noticing it. In his falling frame, gravity appears to be non-existent (locally), because of the equivalence principle, until he reaches the central singularity where his timelike geodesic ends abruptly. This is a well known behavior that can be shown using the Schwarzschild metric. It's a basic thing in General Relativity.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 3:16













    @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 23:22





    @JoãoBosco, the horizon crossing and not-crossing events are observer dependant. In the static exterior frame, the falling dude is never crossing the event horizon, or it will take an infinite time to do so. In the falling reference frame, the time to cross the horizon is finite. It's an extreme case of relativistic time dilation.

    – Cham
    Jan 1 at 23:22













    Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

    – Cham
    Jan 2 at 1:16





    Of course. Delete what you want to be deleted.

    – Cham
    Jan 2 at 1:16











    0














    There is no singularity associated with a Black-hole. At the final nanosecond in the formation of a black hole, essentially all of the matter confined within the envelope of a developing Schwarzschild sphere (whatever its size) can no longer be transformed into particle kinetic-energy, i.e., particle momentum.



    Special relativity does NOT allow an inertial system to exceed the speed of light; and in the interior of a collapsing star, particles colliding at speeds approaching that of light cannot absorb a further increase in the momentum produced by gravitational forces. At this point, gravitational energy is transformed directly into radiation (entropy) rather than particle momentum.



    This critical event, representing a change-in-state from matter to radiation, is preceded by an exponential increase in the momentum of particles confined within the volume of a contracting star (or any object). As particle velocities approach the speed of light, and as distance and time between particle collisions approach zero, the energy-density of a collapsing object will reach a limit where the transformation of gravitational force can no longer be defined in terms of particle collisions.



    As the distance between colliding particles gets smaller, quantum mechanical factors require that the uncertainty in particle momentum correspondingly gets larger. At a critical point in this combination of events, the collision-distance between particles has decreased to a nanometer range that corresponds to the frequency of particle collisions; and particle interactions can be expressed in terms of a series of discrete quantum-mechanical wave-functions (distance and time between particle collisions) that approach the restricting value of 'h' (the Planck constant), producing a potential, quantum-mechanical catastrophe.



    In order to preserve thermodynamic continuity, the thermodynamics of the system must change; consequently, particle matter is transformed into radiant energy by means of quantum mechanical processes. Gravitational energy is now expressed as a function of the total radiation-energy distributed over the surface of the ensuing Schwarzschild sphere, and any additional energy impacting the Black-hole produces an expansion of the Schwarzschild radius, while maintaining a constant energy-density, and a constant boundary acceleration, corresponding to a constant (Unruh) temperature.



    A clue to the transformation of kinetic energy to radiation is seen in the function: e^hf/KT (from the Planck "key" to the ultraviolet paradox). In this function, particle kinetic-energy, "KT", increases due to an increase in particle velocity and effective particle temperature; the frequency of particle collisions, represented by "hf", increases with particle density due to increased gravitational confinement within a developing Schwarzschild object (Black Hole). But temperature and frequency do not rise to infinity, as one might expect from the Planck relationship.



    The formation of a Schwarzschild boundary is coincidental with a maximum particle acceleration and a maximum temperature. This critical event represents the maximum energy-density (rather than the maximum energy) permitted by nature. Temperatures cannot rise beyond this critical point. Instead, these variables now become Black-hole constants and are conserved in all Black-Holes, regardless of their size and total energy. Subsequent to the formation of a Black-hole, temperature, acceleration, gravity and energy-density remain constant at their maximum values...even as more energy is added and the Schwarzschild envelope grows correspondingly larger.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      0














      There is no singularity associated with a Black-hole. At the final nanosecond in the formation of a black hole, essentially all of the matter confined within the envelope of a developing Schwarzschild sphere (whatever its size) can no longer be transformed into particle kinetic-energy, i.e., particle momentum.



      Special relativity does NOT allow an inertial system to exceed the speed of light; and in the interior of a collapsing star, particles colliding at speeds approaching that of light cannot absorb a further increase in the momentum produced by gravitational forces. At this point, gravitational energy is transformed directly into radiation (entropy) rather than particle momentum.



      This critical event, representing a change-in-state from matter to radiation, is preceded by an exponential increase in the momentum of particles confined within the volume of a contracting star (or any object). As particle velocities approach the speed of light, and as distance and time between particle collisions approach zero, the energy-density of a collapsing object will reach a limit where the transformation of gravitational force can no longer be defined in terms of particle collisions.



      As the distance between colliding particles gets smaller, quantum mechanical factors require that the uncertainty in particle momentum correspondingly gets larger. At a critical point in this combination of events, the collision-distance between particles has decreased to a nanometer range that corresponds to the frequency of particle collisions; and particle interactions can be expressed in terms of a series of discrete quantum-mechanical wave-functions (distance and time between particle collisions) that approach the restricting value of 'h' (the Planck constant), producing a potential, quantum-mechanical catastrophe.



      In order to preserve thermodynamic continuity, the thermodynamics of the system must change; consequently, particle matter is transformed into radiant energy by means of quantum mechanical processes. Gravitational energy is now expressed as a function of the total radiation-energy distributed over the surface of the ensuing Schwarzschild sphere, and any additional energy impacting the Black-hole produces an expansion of the Schwarzschild radius, while maintaining a constant energy-density, and a constant boundary acceleration, corresponding to a constant (Unruh) temperature.



      A clue to the transformation of kinetic energy to radiation is seen in the function: e^hf/KT (from the Planck "key" to the ultraviolet paradox). In this function, particle kinetic-energy, "KT", increases due to an increase in particle velocity and effective particle temperature; the frequency of particle collisions, represented by "hf", increases with particle density due to increased gravitational confinement within a developing Schwarzschild object (Black Hole). But temperature and frequency do not rise to infinity, as one might expect from the Planck relationship.



      The formation of a Schwarzschild boundary is coincidental with a maximum particle acceleration and a maximum temperature. This critical event represents the maximum energy-density (rather than the maximum energy) permitted by nature. Temperatures cannot rise beyond this critical point. Instead, these variables now become Black-hole constants and are conserved in all Black-Holes, regardless of their size and total energy. Subsequent to the formation of a Black-hole, temperature, acceleration, gravity and energy-density remain constant at their maximum values...even as more energy is added and the Schwarzschild envelope grows correspondingly larger.






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        0












        0








        0







        There is no singularity associated with a Black-hole. At the final nanosecond in the formation of a black hole, essentially all of the matter confined within the envelope of a developing Schwarzschild sphere (whatever its size) can no longer be transformed into particle kinetic-energy, i.e., particle momentum.



        Special relativity does NOT allow an inertial system to exceed the speed of light; and in the interior of a collapsing star, particles colliding at speeds approaching that of light cannot absorb a further increase in the momentum produced by gravitational forces. At this point, gravitational energy is transformed directly into radiation (entropy) rather than particle momentum.



        This critical event, representing a change-in-state from matter to radiation, is preceded by an exponential increase in the momentum of particles confined within the volume of a contracting star (or any object). As particle velocities approach the speed of light, and as distance and time between particle collisions approach zero, the energy-density of a collapsing object will reach a limit where the transformation of gravitational force can no longer be defined in terms of particle collisions.



        As the distance between colliding particles gets smaller, quantum mechanical factors require that the uncertainty in particle momentum correspondingly gets larger. At a critical point in this combination of events, the collision-distance between particles has decreased to a nanometer range that corresponds to the frequency of particle collisions; and particle interactions can be expressed in terms of a series of discrete quantum-mechanical wave-functions (distance and time between particle collisions) that approach the restricting value of 'h' (the Planck constant), producing a potential, quantum-mechanical catastrophe.



        In order to preserve thermodynamic continuity, the thermodynamics of the system must change; consequently, particle matter is transformed into radiant energy by means of quantum mechanical processes. Gravitational energy is now expressed as a function of the total radiation-energy distributed over the surface of the ensuing Schwarzschild sphere, and any additional energy impacting the Black-hole produces an expansion of the Schwarzschild radius, while maintaining a constant energy-density, and a constant boundary acceleration, corresponding to a constant (Unruh) temperature.



        A clue to the transformation of kinetic energy to radiation is seen in the function: e^hf/KT (from the Planck "key" to the ultraviolet paradox). In this function, particle kinetic-energy, "KT", increases due to an increase in particle velocity and effective particle temperature; the frequency of particle collisions, represented by "hf", increases with particle density due to increased gravitational confinement within a developing Schwarzschild object (Black Hole). But temperature and frequency do not rise to infinity, as one might expect from the Planck relationship.



        The formation of a Schwarzschild boundary is coincidental with a maximum particle acceleration and a maximum temperature. This critical event represents the maximum energy-density (rather than the maximum energy) permitted by nature. Temperatures cannot rise beyond this critical point. Instead, these variables now become Black-hole constants and are conserved in all Black-Holes, regardless of their size and total energy. Subsequent to the formation of a Black-hole, temperature, acceleration, gravity and energy-density remain constant at their maximum values...even as more energy is added and the Schwarzschild envelope grows correspondingly larger.






        share|cite|improve this answer















        There is no singularity associated with a Black-hole. At the final nanosecond in the formation of a black hole, essentially all of the matter confined within the envelope of a developing Schwarzschild sphere (whatever its size) can no longer be transformed into particle kinetic-energy, i.e., particle momentum.



        Special relativity does NOT allow an inertial system to exceed the speed of light; and in the interior of a collapsing star, particles colliding at speeds approaching that of light cannot absorb a further increase in the momentum produced by gravitational forces. At this point, gravitational energy is transformed directly into radiation (entropy) rather than particle momentum.



        This critical event, representing a change-in-state from matter to radiation, is preceded by an exponential increase in the momentum of particles confined within the volume of a contracting star (or any object). As particle velocities approach the speed of light, and as distance and time between particle collisions approach zero, the energy-density of a collapsing object will reach a limit where the transformation of gravitational force can no longer be defined in terms of particle collisions.



        As the distance between colliding particles gets smaller, quantum mechanical factors require that the uncertainty in particle momentum correspondingly gets larger. At a critical point in this combination of events, the collision-distance between particles has decreased to a nanometer range that corresponds to the frequency of particle collisions; and particle interactions can be expressed in terms of a series of discrete quantum-mechanical wave-functions (distance and time between particle collisions) that approach the restricting value of 'h' (the Planck constant), producing a potential, quantum-mechanical catastrophe.



        In order to preserve thermodynamic continuity, the thermodynamics of the system must change; consequently, particle matter is transformed into radiant energy by means of quantum mechanical processes. Gravitational energy is now expressed as a function of the total radiation-energy distributed over the surface of the ensuing Schwarzschild sphere, and any additional energy impacting the Black-hole produces an expansion of the Schwarzschild radius, while maintaining a constant energy-density, and a constant boundary acceleration, corresponding to a constant (Unruh) temperature.



        A clue to the transformation of kinetic energy to radiation is seen in the function: e^hf/KT (from the Planck "key" to the ultraviolet paradox). In this function, particle kinetic-energy, "KT", increases due to an increase in particle velocity and effective particle temperature; the frequency of particle collisions, represented by "hf", increases with particle density due to increased gravitational confinement within a developing Schwarzschild object (Black Hole). But temperature and frequency do not rise to infinity, as one might expect from the Planck relationship.



        The formation of a Schwarzschild boundary is coincidental with a maximum particle acceleration and a maximum temperature. This critical event represents the maximum energy-density (rather than the maximum energy) permitted by nature. Temperatures cannot rise beyond this critical point. Instead, these variables now become Black-hole constants and are conserved in all Black-Holes, regardless of their size and total energy. Subsequent to the formation of a Black-hole, temperature, acceleration, gravity and energy-density remain constant at their maximum values...even as more energy is added and the Schwarzschild envelope grows correspondingly larger.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 31 '18 at 21:55

























        answered Dec 29 '18 at 20:24









        RobertORobertO

        302




        302



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451045%2fbh-singularity-infinite-density%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?