Non Specific Location at Moment of Singularity

[Chip]

This is not even an hypothesis at this stage. Just a notion.

The “singularity,” located within a black hole, is a point wherein matter is crushed to infinite density, and the pull of gravity is infinitely strong. At the singularity, the space-time curvature is infinitely large. Could it then follow that there is no distinction between location in time or space relative only to the singularity at that point? Hence, taken from the frame within the singularity inside any black hole in the universe, all singularities are the same singularity. I think this notion could be worked out symbolically and mathematically without physical proof through impossible observation.

Chip

[Venoma]

Hmm.

Has it not been put forth that the Big Bang itself was a singularity?

In that case, following your postulate, all singularities would be identical to the Big Bang.

I have read (in A Brief History of Time, I believe) that the possibility of a universe budding off of each black hole has been considered. I may have misinterpreted what I read, however. But it seems you are not the first to think along these lines!

PLAGARIST! (joking.)
Can we get some cites in here? I'll see what I can do [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Chip]

Venoma:

Has it not been put forth that the Big Bang itself was a singularity?

Chip:
Yes it has.
Venoma:

In that case, following your postulate, all singularities would be identical to the Big Bang.

Chip:
Maybe. It’s an interesting idea. I see it as a potentially daunting tributary within some kind of Unified Field Theory that would incorporate quantum physics with relativity theory. (We might as well include string theory and a host of others.)
Venoma:

I have read (in A Brief History of Time, I believe) that the possibility of a universe budding off of each black hole has been considered. I may have misinterpreted what I read, however. But it seems you are not the first to think along these lines!

Chip:
I read A Brief History of Time too. Great book. (I heard Hawking is currently writing a different version for kids.) Of course I'm not the first to think of singularities being indistinguishable as spacetime breaks down. Please note I was asking questions, and described it as a "notion" on my part.
Venoma:

PLAGARIST! (joking.)

Ho ho ho. You’re reminding me of a former (nameless) poster who was fond of name calling, especially when shown SR was proven through experiments. (-;

[Venoma]

Whoa! That was low [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] I was quite joking and not exactly awake yet. In case you haven't noticed by the signature (or don't remember, or don't care), I am a former poster. Please don't take me as a sock puppet.

I do presume you mean to bring this up for discussion, and I do NOT claim to be an authority on the subject. (and no, like the 'unnamed poster' I can't do math either!)But nothing in your original post mentioned any previous work that may have lead you to this thought.

Unless of course you were supposing only that all singularities in only black holes might be, in essence, the same singularity.

Then again, if you ONLY want someone to come in here and work out the math, I'll excuse myself.

[Chip]

Sorry. Still burned from "U - know - who." But I did take your joke as a joke however. No offense. Gotta use more of these: (-;

I certainly don't have the towering math skills to accomplish some kind of transformation of equations that leads us to conclude that all singularities are the same singularity. I'm just supposing: since the infinite curve of space-time and infinite gravity seems indistinguishable from one singularity to the next, and location within the universe "winks out" at that "point," maybe there is no location and hence, all singularities the same where they meet.

Whether that includes the universe at the big bang, I'm not sure. (I do have the feeling however that I am missing something big within this notion!) (-;

Chip
(Formally "Gregory" on the old BB.)

[Karl]

I certainly don't have the towering math skills to accomplish some kind of transformation of equations that leads us to conclude that all singularities are the same singularity. I'm just supposing: since the infinite curve of space-time and infinite gravity seems indistinguishable from one singularity to the next, and location within the universe "winks out" at that "point," maybe there is no location and hence, all singularities the same where they meet.

Possibly the thing to remember here is that the 'singularity' occurs because our mathematics can't describe the results. If and when new mathematics (M-Theory?) is derived that can handle the situation, the singularity disappears and a new description results.

[Chip]

On 2001-10-24 13:47, Karl wrote:
Possibly the thing to remember here is that the 'singularity' occurs because our mathematics can't describe the results. If and when new mathematics (M-Theory?) is derived that can handle the situation, the singularity disappears and a new description results.

Thanks for your suggestions, including M-Theory which is still quite new to me, (and which of itself might be a combination of string theories.) This leads me to think that perhaps my initial questions were based on an assumption of entropy within the black hole, as defined by states that seem identical or equivalent at the singularity. M-Theory, wherein dimensions (11 that look like 10 from some directions?) are wrapped around into mathematical loops might provide a kind of trap door for infinite curvature. Of course, this is just a thanks and a response. I don't understand a lot of things here.

Chip

[Lusion]

It would seem to my naive mind that the time-line of any object at the singularity (if you can talk about objects) would include a history where the object was not inside the event horizon. I would think this provides a separation between that singularity and the one supposed at the big bang.

This also leads me to other speculative questions... how much do we actually know about the mass inside the event horizon of a black hole? I'm aware that black holes swallow information, but I'm also fairly certain that they have, for example, a center of gravity (which we could interpret as the "average" of the distribution of mass inside the black hole). Can we say that black holes have a singularity in the center at all, from our perspective (where "our perspective" hopefully means that we are outside the black hole)? If not, knowing that they eventually evaporate, when do they have a singularity?

[Chip]

Lusion:
It would seem to my naive mind that the time-line of any object at the singularity (if you can talk about objects) would include a history where the object was not inside the event horizon. I would think this provides a separation between that singularity and the one supposed at the big bang.

Chip:
Good question. When curvature reaches infinity, is the timeline elongated into a separate entity? (I.e. Everything happens at once.) Or is it abandoned? This second alternative seems disturbing, but time may not exist at the singularity.

Lusion:
This also leads me to other speculative questions... how much do we actually know about the mass inside the event horizon of a black hole?

Chip:
One concept that I do not understand well is that the mass inside a black hole might be theoretically detectible due to so-called “virtual gravitons” that can cross the event horizon and exchange mass beyond the black hole. The “virtual gravitons” create the spacetime curve which in turn influences the particles that produced the gravitons that created the curve in the first place. (Cart before horse!) Maybe somebody like Kip Thorn will come here and explain it to us better! (-;

Lusion:
I'm aware that black holes swallow information, but I'm also fairly certain that they have, for example, a center of gravity (which we could interpret as the "average" of the distribution of mass inside the black hole). Can we say that black holes have a singularity in the center at all, from our perspective (where "our perspective" hopefully means that we are outside the black hole)?

Chip:
I’ve read of models that have the singularity inside and centered. In a super-massive black hole at a galactic center, there may be quite a distance from the border of the event horizon to the singularity. The mathematical model of a tunnel might be more appropriate, wherein the singularity has a history, as you stated, and we really can’t say it exists “here” or “there” but rather it “begins” at the slope and gradually (or sharply) increases. From the edge to the crunch is the “singularity.”

Lusion:
If not, knowing that they eventually evaporate, when do they have a singularity?

Chip:
Does the “arrow of time” exist for them? Perhaps from the impossible “singularity’s point of view,” onto itself as an entity, created from the overwhelming force of massive star gravitational collapse, it’s entire history is it’s existence as a “single” entity, and without the arrow of time.

[Tim Thompson]

The singularity is a point, so there is no "frame within the singularity" concept in physics (unless you can figure out the geometry "interior" to a point). If you want to go there, you have to invent your own physics and mathematics.

There is, however, a region inside a black hole, between the "event horizon" and the singularity, where space & time exist. Inside that region, all possible trajectories in space & time point towards the singularity, which is why, once you go past the event horizon, yer doomed.

[DStahl]

<FONT FACE="Times Roman" SIZE="2">Chip--I'm a bit dubious about the notion that the indistinguishability of singularities implying too much about their identitity. After all, a cardinal rule of quantum physics is that you cannot distinguish one electron from another, but that doesn't mean they're all the same electron.</FONT>

<FONT FACE="Times Roman" SIZE="2">My layman's understanding, from reading Thorne and his paraphrase of Wheeler's speculations, is that time does not exist at the singularity. I guess it's annihilated along with the 3 dimensions of space. There's a fundamantal disconnect in my brain when I try to understand how the singularity can form or disappear if it has no time, though. Does causality also break down at the singularity, so that cause does not have to precede effect in time? Oh, this is way fun. Thanks for starting the thread!</FONT>

<FONT FACE="Times Roman" SIZE="1">[DStahl was once Dog Ed.]</FONT>

[Tim Thompson]

It's not just that time does not exist at the singularity, but rather that nothing physically exists at the singularity. You can represent the singularity as a geometric point in a coordinate diagram, but that's not the same thing.

The real point of theoretical physics is that there are no singularities anyway. The singularity should not be treated as if it were "something", although it commonly is in popular expositions on cosmology & relativity.

What the singularity really represents is a failure of the theory (in this case, the theory of general relativity). The proper thing to do is not to worry over what the singularity is all about, but rather to go find another (better) theory that doesn't have any singularity. That's what quantized gravity & string theory are all about, they eliminate the singularity altogether, making it possible to describe what goes on, where GR would just say "singularity" and quit.

[Karl]

On 2001-10-25 21:39, Tim Thompson wrote:

. . .[snip]

What the singularity really represents is a failure of the theory (in this case, the theory of general relativity). The proper thing to do is not to worry over what the singularity is all about, but rather to go find another (better) theory that doesn't have any singularity. That's what quantized gravity & string theory are all about, they eliminate the singularity altogether, making it possible to describe what goes on, where GR would just say "singularity" and quit.

That's what I was trying to say, if not quite so eloquently.

[DStahl]

<FONT SIZE="2">Tim T: Yeah, I agree. Wheeler called it something like "the fiery marriage of relativity and quantum mechanics" I think. Our current theories seem to present us with paradoxical infinities, which says more about our theories than about the Universe, doesn't it?</font>

[Wally]

If all singularities are in fact the same one, then what accounts for the different "sizes" (for lack of a better word) of bh's that scientists have undercovered, such as those at the center of galaxies and the like? Wouldn't all bh's be the same, gravational-wise, if they were in fact all the same singularity? Perhaps it's better to think of individual bh's as being different "doors" (or windows, whatever) into the same non-space/non-time place. Oh heck, I don't know. Thinking about black holes gives me a headache! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Chip]

On 2001-10-25 23:28, DStahl wrote:
<FONT SIZE="2">Tim T: Yeah, I agree. Wheeler called it something like "the fiery marriage of relativity and quantum mechanics" I think. Our current theories seem to present us with paradoxical infinities, which says more about our theories than about the Universe, doesn't it?</font>

Tim, Karl, DStahl:
Your insights are appreciated. (I think we're reaching the "singularity" of this thread topic!) (-;

Given the singularity being a mathematical point where SR winks out -- is the area just before (inside event horizon to point) theoretically "real"?

Chip

[Chip]

DStahl:
Chip--I'm a bit dubious about the notion that the indistinguishability of singularities implying too much about their identity. After all, a cardinal rule of quantum physics is that you cannot distinguish one electron from another, but that doesn't mean they're all the same electron.

Chip:
My thinking was that because of this indistinguishability, there is no way to define location. Therefore the point (as Tim Thompson noted,) has no individual existence. I suppose I could go crazy and ask if all electrons are just one electron at different times.

DStahl:
My layman's understanding, from reading Thorne and his paraphrase of Wheeler's speculations, is that time does not exist at the singularity. I guess it's annihilated along with the 3 dimensions of space.

Chip:
Tim pointed out that I'm making the mistake of thinking of the singularity as a thing that actually exists somewhere. Once I do that, and noticing again the "indistinguishability" I started wondering if the point within black holes becomes a universal singularity.

DStahl:
There's a fundamental disconnect in my brain when I try to understand how the singularity can form or disappear if it has no time, though. Does causality also break down at the singularity, so that cause does not have to precede effect in time?

Chip:
Is there a difference between "nothing" and "absolutely nothing?" (i.e. no time, energy, space, space-time.) Beautiful SR goes away at that point just as one wouldn't use a theory of gases to describe the behavior of solids.

DStahl:
Oh, this is way fun. Thanks for starting the thread!

Chip:
You're welcome. I am delighted when big brains like Tim, Karl, you, etcetera...answer and comment!

[Kaptain K]

Chip,
FWIW If you use "conventional" smilies, the board will convert them to icons.
i.e. You use open parentheses, dash, semi-colon and get this (-; (wink).
If you turn it around, semi-colon, dash, closed parentheses, you get this [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] (wink smiley).

[Chip]

On 2001-10-26 13:48, Kaptain K wrote:
Chip,
FWIW If you use "conventional" smilies, the board will convert them to icons.
i.e. You use open parentheses, dash, semi-colon and get this (-; (wink).
If you turn it around, semi-colon, dash, closed parentheses, you get this [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] (wink smiley).

Thanks Captain! (I hate those things.) Being somewhat of an iconoclast in this area, I use the (-;
However, if everybody used the more dignified open parentheses...well, then I'd sometimes [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] the other way, but not too much! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Chip

[Chip]

Wally:
If all singularities are in fact the same one, then what accounts for the different "sizes" (for lack of a better word) of bh's that scientists have uncovered, such as those at the center of galaxies and the like?

Chip:
One answer: "Singularities" are not black holes. Singularities are points of non-existence within the black holes. The black holes can be as diverse in location and size as regular stars. The point of infinite curvature within them, wherein location and time seemingly don't exist, offer no reference for distinguishing anything. So I implied that "they" could be the same "one" at that point. (Or should I say "zero?" or :infinity symbol:?)
Note: Karl and Tim have pointed out or implied that the singularity could be thought of as an aberration within the physics of black holes, and not an actual physical (non-physical?) point.

Wally:
Wouldn't all bh's be the same, gradational-wise, if they were in fact all the same singularity?

Chip:
The exterior and event horizons are at different locations, and interact with their surroundings differently. (As in the case where one black hole is by itself, another is massive at the center of a galaxy, and another is near a star, and drawing plasma off of it.)

Wally:
Perhaps it's better to think of individual bh's as being different "doors" (or windows, whatever) into the same non-space/non-time place.

Chip:
That's what I asked at the start of this thread.

Wally:
Oh heck, I don't know. Thinking about black holes gives me a headache! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Chip:
Yes, but one can still take a walk, smell the flowers, listen to Mozart, etc..clears things up. Those places where theory breaks down are interesting aren't they?

[ljbrs]

Hmm.

Has it not been put forth that the Big Bang itself was a singularity?

In that case, following your postulate, all singularities would be identical to the Big Bang.

*I have read (in A Brief History of Time, I believe) that the possibility of a universe budding off of each black hole has been considered. I may have misinterpreted what I read, however. But it seems you are not the first to think along these lines!

PLAGARIST! (joking.)*

==========

I have read that the Big Bang started from a repulsive *White Hole* which is the opposite of a gravitationally-attractive *Black Hole*.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Chip]

On 2001-10-26 19:40, ljbrs wrote:
Hmm.

Has it not been put forth that the Big Bang itself was a singularity?

In that case, following your postulate, all singularities would be identical to the Big Bang...

I have read that the Big Bang started from a repulsive *White Hole* which is the opposite of a gravitationally-attractive *Black Hole*.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I think there may be some added complexities I haven't considered, though the basic idea I put forth above is that all points of singularity within every black hole everywhere (and everywhen) are indistinguishable at the singularity, and therefore could be considered all one in the same.

As for the big bang, there seem to be attractive analogies between the moment of expansion where all that became the universe could grow from a hypothetical point (with, no central location.) But, as far as I know, the singularity in a black hole is centrally located (though I haven't visited one recently.) There may be models where it is not centrally located with respect to the outer shell – event horizon.
The big bang model seems different on a fundamental level to the black hole's singularity.

As for the black hole into “white hole” idea: I have read of this back in the 1970s, and initially it was one explanation for quasars. But that idea seems to have fizzled, as I haven’t read of it in recent years. Maybe it’s been modified or replaced with another concept.

It may be that the singularity before the first millisecond after the “big bang,” and any given singularity within any black hole, are both mathematical precepts (or even “place holders”) in lieu of a better application of quantum physics in harmony with the “point” where general relativity leaves off via aforementioned unified theories currently under development. (See also Tim Thompson's and Karl's posts) (-;

Chip


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2001-10-27 23:21 ]</font>

[Pi Man]

In many theories(string theory being one), everything that falls into a black hole never really goes past the event horizon(for those that need it, the event horizon is the point at which the gravitational attraction of a black hole becomes great enough so as not to let anything, not even light, escape.) String theory for instance predicts that super strings would break and have their ends bound to the event horizon. other ideas includ the fact that gravity(just as velocity) slows down time. Time stops at the event horizon, therefore it must go *backwards* within it. Thus, anything that falls past the event horizon would fall *backwards* to the event horizon where time would stop and prevent it from moving. However, as you fall toward a black hole, the black hole shrinks(sounds strange, but trust me, or at least trust this guy). So, once you fall all the way in, the event horizon shrinks to zero size, thus making it a singularity only from the perspective of the singularity. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

The Pi Man most likely blabbed too long
(Sorry, I'm a major geek) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-07-19 12:15 ]</font>

[Pi Man]

Another thing: Venoma mentioned that in A Brief History Of Time, it is hypothisized that each formation of a black hole could be start a new universe. What would happen to that situation if two black holes collided? Since time breaks down at the event horizon, the event would not be able to be pinned down to one time in the two other universes that resulted from the colliding black holes creations.

[xriso]

How would this universe-budding work in the sheet-of-fabric analogy to space curvature? Or is it beyond its scope? I suppose that mass actually curves space rather than pushing it down (-:

I really wish I knew more about GR.

[roidspop]

Time stops at the event horizon, therefore it must go *backwards* within it.

I think that time is described as simply stopping, but not reversing. Also, if its true that time does stop at an event horizon, it has been argued that there are probably no singularities in existence because the gravitational collapse can never go to completion.

[Pi Man]

To:xriso
I suppose one could view the budding as blowing a bubble in the latex sheet and tying it off to form a balloon.
To:roidspop
The not going to completion theorists call black holes frozen stars, as they never completely collapse

<Hr>
infinity
Pi=Epsilon (4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
n=0

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-06-29 22:21 ]</font>

[Lucky]

Woo-Hoo! I love this stuff!

I have some questions though:

I've read all about black holes and singularities and always thought that the singularity is a consequence of mathematics. I remember reading it's where God divided by zero. But anyway, I also read that electrically charged black holes have been hypothesised, and this opens up a 'ring' in the ... um ... middle? of the black hole. Well, I guess you'd say the ring appears at the point where your trip terminates on crossing the event horizon. I read that this ring is the entrance to a 'wormhole', a term that gets bandied about quite a bit.

So, my question is, whose hypothesis proposes an electrically charged black hole, and is this practical or has it been proven incorrect?

Secondly, I quite often get asked about white holes (people think I'm smart for some reason). I get asked about whether or not a white hole is in fact the 'exit' whereas the black hole is the 'entrance' if you get my drift.

People seem so fixed on this for some reason; I guess because it gives some hope for 'time travel' and 'instantaneous travel'. However, I always thought that the abandonment of Hoyle's Steady State Theory really did in the whole 'white hole' phenomena because it violated a lot of concrete physical laws like the conservation of matter.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Finally, if the singularity is not really a point, then where exactly is the 'point of infinite density' that I read about all the time?

Keep it going fellas, because the only cure for ignorance is knowledge.

[Kaptain K]

A black hole can be described with only three parameters: mass, charge and spin. So, yes, charged black holes are possible. However, such a charged black hole would selectively attract particles of the opposite charge and quickly be neutralised.

Toroidal (ring-like) rotating black holes have been hypothesised if the rate of rotation is high enough. The ring is not a function of charge, but of spin.

It has also been hypothesised that the "hole in the donut" of such a toroidal black hole might be used as a portal for instantaneous transportation.

[Wiley]

On 2002-07-01 02:33, Lucky wrote:
Secondly, I quite often get asked about white holes (people think I'm smart for some reason). I get asked about whether or not a white hole is in fact the 'exit' whereas the black hole is the 'entrance' if you get my drift.

White holes almost certainly do not exist. While white holes are a valid mathematical solution for GR, they are not a valid physical solution. Also if black holes had an "exit", i.e. matter/energy escaping in significant amounts, it seems they would decay very rapidly and would cease to be a black hole. (Hawking radiation is not significant for large black holes.)

Finally, if the singularity is not really a point, then where exactly is the 'point of infinite density' that I read about all the time?

The black hole terminology can be a bit confusing. The term "singularity" comes from the corresponding mathematical term which means a point where a function is not analytic. The black hole solution is not analytic, or is singular, at the center of a black hole. Over time astro-people began using singularity and black hole interchangebly. Mathematicians cringe when they hear it, but they tend to spook easily anyway.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-07-01 15:00 ]</font>