Understanding a singularity

[AsleepInYorkshire]

We're told that every lack hole has something called a singularity.

This is a place where time and space end?

I've absolutely no idea how to imagine that

I'd genuinely welcome so thoughts on how I can get my head around it

If space and time don't exist in a singularity then how can it exist? What is it? Is it an infinite amount of energy or something else?

AiY

[johnhemming]

The point about a black hole is that the escape velocity (the speed that something has to be moving at to escape the gravitational well) is greater than the speed of light. That means information cannot get out of a black hole. Hence we cannot really know although we can theorise.

[kiloran]

I wouldn''t think a singularity is where time and space end as such, I think it's more a case of humans not (yet!) being smart enough to create the mathematics to adequately describe them.

Of course, there is a slight chance I may be wrong!

--kiloran

[ursaminortaur]

I wouldn''t think a singularity is where time and space end as such, I think it's more a case of humans not (yet!) being smart enough to create the mathematics to adequately describe them.

Of course, there is a slight chance I may be wrong!

--kiloran

For a blackhole the singularity is where the mathematics comes up with a density of infinity. If it were to really exist it would be a point with absoutely zero radius but containing a finite mass (pretty much that of the blackhole - though you could imagine some of the matter which fell into the blackhole hasn't quite made it to the singularity yet). That means that if the finite mass is M then the density at the singularity is M/0 ie infinity. For most objects in the universe such a situation can't occur since other forces between the particles electromagnetic, repulsive nuclear forces etc stop it collapsing down to a point. The problem with blackholes is that we don't know anything which can succcessfully stop the collapse and lacking that knowledge our mathematical descriptions end up with a singularity.

The term singularity is a straight pinch from mathematics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point where the mathematical object ceases to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as the lack of differentiability or analyticity.

For example, the real function

f ( x ) = 1/x

has a singularity at x = 0 where it seems to "explode" to ± infinity and hence is not defined.

[johnhemming]

I don't think we have tried compressing quarks that much so we cannot be sure that actually the singularity is in fact a singularity. Once things are in the Schwarzschild radius then we don't know for certain and cannot expect to know.

[Itsallaguess]

It's a fascinating area of science, certainly, but one thing has always interested me with regards to black-holes and singularities..

On the face of it they seem to be the flip-side of a big-bang, in essence, and so we've got two fundamental questions regarding both phenomenon -

1. Where does all the 'matter' go that gets sucked into a black-hole?

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Whilst we've clearly not got the tools available to fully answer either of those two questions as we stand today, it seems to me as an interested layman that the two situations are so closely mirrored, that there must be some sort of common link between them, even if we don't understand it at this stage.

I can't bring myself to believe that they are completely disconnected cosmic events...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[ursaminortaur]

It's a fascinating area of science, certainly, but one thing has always interested me with regards to black-holes and singularities..

On the face of it they seem to be the flip-side of a big-bang, in essence, and so we've got two fundamental questions regarding both phenomenon -

1. Where does all the 'matter' go that gets sucked into a black-hole?

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Whilst we've clearly not got the tools available to fully answer either of those two questions as we stand today, it seems to me as an interested layman that the two situations are so closely mirrored, that there must be some sort of common link between them, even if we don't understand it at this stage.

I can't bring myself to believe that they are completely disconnected cosmic events...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

They are both situations where there is a lot of mass/energy in an extremely small space and hence require a theory which can deal with both gravity and the extremly small realm of quantum theory ie a theory of quantum-gravity. The similarities have led to theories of black hole cosmology in which it is theorised that our Universe is actually the interior of a black hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology

These ideas led Lee Smolin to propose the idea of cosmological natural selection in which universes beget universes by forming black holes so our Universe would have been born from a black hole in a parent universe and would through its creation of black holes have produced and still be producing child universes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection

[AsleepInYorkshire]

It's a fascinating area of science, certainly, but one thing has always interested me with regards to black-holes and singularities..

On the face of it they seem to be the flip-side of a big-bang, in essence, and so we've got two fundamental questions regarding both phenomenon -

1. Where does all the 'matter' go that gets sucked into a black-hole?

It is broken down until it becomes part of the singularity and increases the radius of the black hole?

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Energy is converted into matter. Noting that in the hot big bang theory no singularity exists at the start of the process (If I recall correctly)

Whilst we've clearly not got the tools available to fully answer either of those two questions as we stand today, it seems to me as an interested layman that the two situations are so closely mirrored, that there must be some sort of common link between them, even if we don't understand it at this stage.

I can't bring myself to believe that they are completely disconnected cosmic events...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[ursaminortaur]

It's a fascinating area of science, certainly, but one thing has always interested me with regards to black-holes and singularities..

On the face of it they seem to be the flip-side of a big-bang, in essence, and so we've got two fundamental questions regarding both phenomenon -

1. Where does all the 'matter' go that gets sucked into a black-hole?

It is broken down until it becomes part of the singularity and increases the radius of the black hole?

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Energy is converted into matter. Noting that in the hot big bang theory no singularity exists at the start of the process (If I recall correctly)

Whilst we've clearly not got the tools available to fully answer either of those two questions as we stand today, it seems to me as an interested layman that the two situations are so closely mirrored, that there must be some sort of common link between them, even if we don't understand it at this stage.

I can't bring myself to believe that they are completely disconnected cosmic events...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Yes, modern theory has the Universe starting out with inflation which produces a big bang but no actual singularity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#67883cd77d81

In the early 1980s, it was theorized that, before our Universe was hot, dense, expanding, cooling, and full of matter and radiation, it was inflating
.
.
.
When it does, it converts that energy, which was previously inherent to space itself, into matter and radiation, which leads to the hot Big Bang. But it doesn't lead to an arbitrarily hot Big Bang, but rather one that achieved a maximum temperature that's at most hundreds of times smaller than the scale at which a singularity could emerge. In other words, it leads to a hot Big Bang that arises from an inflationary state, not a singularity.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

OK - so no singularity before the hot big bang. Inflation only.

Once started inflation is very hard to stop? But when it does the probability of the creation of a universe increases? And this could suggest a "mechanism" for multiverses? Inflation never stops everywhere but once it stop it produces a universe?

Cosmic inflation occurred 10,000,000 Planck times (Planck moments) after the big bang (this is one trillion, trillion, trillionths of second). Matter did not exist at this point. Only energy. This turned chaos into order as it spread the constituents of the universe out in an even way. In a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. To imagine the scale of that inflation it would be equivalent to a grain of sand expanding to the size of our sun faster than the speed of light. This doesn't break Einstein's law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Indeed "nothing" can travel faster than the speed of light and it was nothing (space) that expanded. Galaxies are moving away from each other today. But the galaxies aren't moving. The space between them is expanding.

It's interesting to note that there were more Planck Moments in the first second of the universe than there have been seconds since. This is how scientists can understand how so much seemed to happen in, what appears to us as a short time.

Matter appeared at about one millionth of a second after the start of the big bang

Apologies if the numbers above aren't correct.

AiY

[jfgw]

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Energy is converted into matter. Noting that in the hot big bang theory no singularity exists at the start of the process (If I recall correctly)

There is the problem that energy cannot be converted into just particles of matter. Energy can be converted into equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but where is the antimatter?


Julian F. G. W.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

2. Where does all the 'matter' come from that appears at the instant of a big bang?

Energy is converted into matter. Noting that in the hot big bang theory no singularity exists at the start of the process (If I recall correctly)

There is the problem that energy cannot be converted into just particles of matter. Energy can be converted into equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but where is the antimatter?


Julian F. G. W.

The antimatter and matter cancelled each other out during the "big bang". However, for every billion times they did this there was one extra particle of matter and it's that matter that makes the universe today. I've no idea why there was slightly more matter than antimatter though.

Can anyone throw any light on that please?

AiY

[johnhemming]

The antimatter and matter cancelled each other out during the "big bang". However, for every billion times they did this there was one extra particle of matter and it's that matter that makes the universe today. I've no idea why there was slightly more matter than antimatter though.

Can anyone throw any light on that please?

I apologise because my current policy is to get drunk before 7pm so I go to sleep primarily sober (as I think sleeping sober is more important than being sober during the (non working) day.

However, taking that into account, I am sorry but I don't agree with that thesis.

[Itsallaguess]

I apologise because my current policy is to get drunk before 7pm so I go to sleep primarily sober, as I think sleeping sober is more important than being sober during the (non working) day.

If that sentence doesn't win some sort of award for succinctly describing the whole '2020 COVID milieu', then there is absolutely no justice in this world...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[ReformedCharacter]

The antimatter and matter cancelled each other out during the "big bang". However, for every billion times they did this there was one extra particle of matter and it's that matter that makes the universe today. I've no idea why there was slightly more matter than antimatter though.

Can anyone throw any light on that please?

AiY

I don't think anyone knows yet:

https://home.cern/science/physics/matte ... ry-problem

RC

[johnhemming]

I apologise because my current policy is to get drunk before 7pm so I go to sleep primarily sober, as I think sleeping sober is more important than being sober during the (non working) day.

If that sentence doesn't win some sort of award for succinctly describing the whole '2020 COVID milieu', then there is absolutely no justice in this world...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I thank you. It was a nice bottle of red wine followed by pomegranate juice mixed with malt whisky. It sounds like a heresy, but it does not taste like one.

[Itsallaguess]

I apologise because my current policy is to get drunk before 7pm so I go to sleep primarily sober, as I think sleeping sober is more important than being sober during the (non working) day.

If that sentence doesn't win some sort of award for succinctly describing the whole '2020 COVID milieu', then there is absolutely no justice in this world...

I thank you. It was a nice bottle of red wine followed by pomegranate juice mixed with malt whisky. It sounds like a heresy, but it does not taste like one.

Which brings us neatly back to the thread topic, discussing larger-scale cosmological events, but which also indiscriminately consume any and all localised matter...

:O)

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[AsleepInYorkshire]

The antimatter and matter cancelled each other out during the "big bang". However, for every billion times they did this there was one extra particle of matter and it's that matter that makes the universe today. I've no idea why there was slightly more matter than antimatter though.

Can anyone throw any light on that please?

I apologise because my current policy is to get drunk before 7pm so I go to sleep primarily sober (as I think sleeping sober is more important than being sober during the (non working) day.

However, taking that into account, I am sorry but I don't agree with that thesis.

I'm very concerned. Sleep you say? Sleep? It's over-rated I think. I've decided to rewrite my thesis as I'm not sure it's a matter for us to worry if matter or antimatter won this early battle. I agree with you it doesn't matter

AiY

[johnhemming]

Sleep you say? Sleep? It's over-rated I think

On that point I must admit I disagree. I apologise for applying a tad more malt whisky to pomegranate juice, but if you want a long and healthy life sleep is worth giving a modicum of priority.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Sleep you say? Sleep? It's over-rated I think

On that point I must admit I disagree. I apologise for applying a tad more malt whisky to pomegranate juice, but if you want a long and healthy life sleep is worth giving a modicum of priority.

I see ... a late epoch ... whiskey versus pomegranate . Please publish the results there may a nobel prize in there somewhere

AiY