A black hole singularity, if it existed, with infinite gravitational force, would effectively be a zero radius turn in the fabric of space time, or an infinitely small radius turn.
As far as I have read, a quantum mechanics view of black holes with the Pauli exclusion principle already shows there is no singularity in black holes. That accounts for matter, but to account for EM waves where the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply, would the electromagnetic field oscillations of the EM waves become non perpendicular from the low radius turn of and exert self pressure (similar to two facing magnets repulsion) resisting further curvature of space time ie decrease in the turn radius?
AFAIK, there is no complete description of black holes with QM because there is no unification of GR with QM and 4 dimensions. At best, you should read about String theory, in which case IIRC the singularity is described by a finite sized brane over however many dimensions are required.
Or more practically: for the outside observer, nothing ever falls in, it just sits on the event horizon. Which means there's a potential barrier trapping a shell of mass, and you get plain old boring ordinary quantum tunneling -- a very simple argument for Hawking radiation, though justifying that (and deriving its temperature), in the curvature of the area, is a lot more complex than that.
The other crucial point is that if you have somehow managed to get inside a black hole then you can never get out to report your findings.
It was proposed by Roger Penrose that all singularities have an event horizon around them. The Weak Cosmic Censorship conjecture which roughly states that naked singularities cannot exist in our universe they are always surrounded by an event horizon. A proof of this conjecture in its Strong form has proved remarkably elusive. Review article or Arxiv
formatting link
It looks like the strong version has been disproved although I have yet to quiz any of my cosmologist friends about the validity of this paper:
formatting link
You will still be spaghettified and reach the singularity in a finite time on your clock there are no stable orbits inside the event horizon.
I'd appreciate a reply to this thought experiment:
take two bar magnets with parallel axis, seperated by a given distance, ie in this configuration |(gap)| where | are the two magnets, north pole upwards. Then send a gravitational wave in the perpendicular plane of the magnet's common axis. For example a gravitational wave that will curve space between the two magnets so that a straight line between the top of the magnets is shorter than a straight line between the bottom of the magnets (taking a shortcut instead of following curved space).
So if the magnetic force can take this shortcut, then there will be a magnetic repulsion while space is curved.
If there is no singularity at the center of a black hole, that means that gravity isn't able to keep something from escaping the event horizon (theoreticall) too. ie, the same thing that resists forming a singularity could escape an event horizon.
Jamie, you cannot just write random word salad and expect it to be true.
Even in classical physics Laplace conjectured the existence of an object whose gravity was so strong that nothing not even light could escape it. Less than a century after Romer had showed by watching the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites that the speed of light was finite in 1676.
What Laplace didn't know at the time was that an object so dense cannot resist the gravitational forces and will collapse to a point in finite time as far as someone sat on the surface of the object is concerned.
FWIW a neutron star diameter of 10km is only about 10x the Schwarzchild radius for a black hole of the same mass at 1km. Neutron stars are held up by degeneracy pressure until they get too heavy then they implode.
A reasonable answer of your question and others you haven't asked is at:
Why do you need to be "speghettiefied"? "Speghettification" is a result of the gradient of the gravitational field. For very large black holes the gradient of that field is very small at the event horizon.
Hmmm... if the gradient is very large, while falling in, different parts of your body will experience varying time dilations. I wonder what effects that could have?
Rick C.
- Get 6 months of free supercharging - Tesla referral code -
At that point the difference in gravitational potential across your body would dwarf the chemical binding energy of the molecules it was made of.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Hawking radiation is increased for smaller black holes, increasing the evaporation rate, from this paper:
formatting link
One possible formula for the temperature of a black hole is T = (surface gravity)/2pi
where surface gravity is the gravitational force measured at the event horizon.
To know which of the formulas for temperature are correct, it is easy to measure the event horizon radius, so measuring the actual black body temperature of the event horizon should be done.
Could be done by an orbiting satellite skimming the event horizon, with a cryogenic nanokelvin cold head IR detector, and cryogenic ambient shield, or else by building a dyson sphere around the black hole and cooling the interior facing surface of the dyson sphere down to nanokelvin then directly measuring the temperature of the event horizon.
These experiments would allow for perturbing the black hole, similar to how seismic imaging is done on earth as well.
Since most black holes would have a temperature lower than their surroundings, (cosmic background temperature at minimum) they will increase their mass over time. If a small black hole can be found that is losing mass, this can give a hint what the temperature formula is as well, if the event horizon radius is measured, possibly two nominal black holes (ie low masses in homeostasis with the background ambient, not growing masses) which are in orbit with each other, could lose enough mass via gravitational waves that they would evaporate as a reverse supernova, increasing temperature exponentially once their masses get low enough to give them a high temperature of black body emission.
If you change the surface gravity locally on the event horizon, or reduce the ambient temperature outside an area of the event horizon, you can get the black hole to emit instead of absorb energy.
If the black hole had a singularity, it is unlikely any of this would apply, since that breaks thermodynamics which is what Hawking radiation is based upon.
Are you saying a strain sensor on one bar will measure the repulsive force between the two perpendicular bars (which otherwise have no repulsive or attractive force) if space is curved between the two bars? I don't think this would occur as the curved space will change the distance between the bars, but not their relative angles.
There is a second order effect though where the angle of the bars does effectively change, which is what I am considering, ie a hyperspace shortcut bypassing curved space. This would necessarily act directly as a repulsive force on space and not on the strain sensor, if it existed, which is my question.
Even better than that. The bar itself will measure the strain of itself!
G-waves aren't a magic forceless warping of everything. On the small (classical) scale, they're just another force. Your butt is most certainly feeling the strain of a static gravity wave pushing it into a seat!
I don't know what that means, but "hyperspace" doesn't exist, so I'm guessing it also doesn't exist.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.