Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: singularities, the impossibility of infinite mass?

  1. #1 singularities, the impossibility of infinite mass? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5
    so this recently came to my attention.

    (correct me if I'm wrong)
    Einsteins theory about singularities stated that an infinite mass was located at a single point. this makes a whole bunch of other laws of nature invalid. such as two amounts of matter occuping the same space at the same time being impossible.

    Until now I didnt realize that the theory included infinite mass.

    So for someone fairly uneducated in the matter like me it seemed strange.

    why isnt the possibility of an absolute mass concidered? like saturated space?

    energy and matter change from one to the other in different circumstances but it would seem illogical to me that matter could be compressed infinitely. wouldnt there be a limit when matter reaches maximum density?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    although thanks to your completely new account this looks like trolling, i'll indulge you.

    first off a singularity doesn't have infinite mass, it has infinite density. this is because the mass of the black hole is compressed into one point. which means there is finite space in a volume of zero. x/0 is infinity when x does not equal zero.

    the next thing you ask about is if the theory goes against certain laws we believe nature follows such as multiple particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

    this is true, once enough mass piles up in a set volume and light can no longer escape that volume, the force of gravity is so strong that it collapses the matter down into a well of pure gravity. it is not matter, just a point in space with as much mass as all the matter that was there before the black hole was formed.

    next, no the theory does not include infinite mass, only infinite density. if this occured in anything but a singularity, it would imply infinite mass which is impossible, infinite mass would pull everything in the universe into it. which we obviously don't observe.

    the terms absolute mass and saturated space have no meaning to me when talking about black holes. i've heard of absolute mass when talking about particle physics, and saturated space is completely unfamiliar to me in the context of science.

    and for your final two sentences: in a way matter is compressed infinitely, in a way it's not. black holes are generally thought to be formed by neutron stars that grow sufficiently massive to have enough gravity to stop light from escaping them. they are essentially a giant nucleus, consisting of neutrons and protons, and are formed inside of giant stars towards the end of their lives. once a black hole is formed however, the individual protons and neutrons cease to exist, they aren't collapsed so that protons and neutrons overlap each other, they are compressed so strongly that they cease to have any dimension and collapse down to nothing. and as for your question about maximum density, that has as much meaning as saturated space, there is no such thing as maximum density. the most dense something can become without forming a black hole is just under m/([4/3]Pi * Sr^3). where m is mass, and Sr is the schwarzschild radius of the object.


    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5
    okok i dont know all the correct terminology. but wouldnt there be a point where density reaches its limit? gravity scrambles all the known particles inte the absolute smallest component (wich we dont know) but this particle wouldnt be compressable?
    this would be the maximum density since if so, it would not get any smaller.

    this probably sounds stupid but I'm thinking tomatoes in a blender. when theyre shredded they take less space. Particles in a black hole would be the same right?

    when I say saturated space I mean an area completeley full. nothig more can exist in that space because its alreadey full.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    well thanks for the explanation of the terms you used, but they're still not really correct.

    if you think about what happens in the black hole according to accepted theories, both of those things are incorrect. the space CAN only hold a certain number of protons, neutrons, electrons, and other such particles. that's the density of a nucleus or a neutron star, the particles can't be more compressed and remain particles. however when the neutron star gets big enough its gravity is such that the particles are crushed inwards, not compacted together into a more dense group of particles, simply crushed down to nothing.

    this means that they're crushed to a single point that contains their finite mass, in an infinitely small space. of course there's nothing more compressed than infinite density so one could call this "saturated space" but you can still add more mass to it, according to current theories it will fall in and collapse into the singularity(single point) like all the initial particles did.

    so, maximum density as a stand-alone term has no uses, but if you say the maximum density of uncollapsed(outside of a black hole) it's the density of a neutron star. saturated space also only exists in uncollapsed space, there the maximum amount of matter that fits in a set volume is the mass of a neutron star of that volume. however in the collapsed space at and around a singularity, you can throw in as much matter and make something as dense as you want.

    there are no stupid question, but what i've told you would be easy enough to look up on wikipedia.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5
    sure sure I'm with you so far. but protons neutrons and such arent the smallest particles. they can be split. crushed. of course two protons cant occupy the same spacetime. but they can be scrambled .

    It would seem logical to me that all known particles would get completely scrambeled by the intense gravity but to the limit of absolute smallest particle. these would still ocupy some space and the singulaity would have a size proportionate to its mass.

    please explain why, if this isnt the case

    also, could any amount of matter have the properties of a singularity, if it is compressed to "infinite density"

    would any singularity regardless off mass have the same physical size?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    protons and neutrons can in fact be split into quarks. but you're delving into particle physics that not even experts fully understand. we don't have a particular "radius" of a quark.

    and yes, when you travel into a black hole, the difference in gravity between the front of a particle and the back can cause enough tension to split the particle apart. this is reffered to as "spaghetification".

    once you break the proton down into its elementary particles, they're inside the event horizon and flying closer and closer to the singularity. eventually the gravity is so strong(because it gets infinitely close) that it collapses the particle to nothing.

    think about it, no matter what amount of force is telling the particle it shouldn't collapse, the force of gravity will become stronger when the particle gets close enough.

    so that means that the singularity within the black hole will not have a volume proportionate to its mass. the volume is zero, and that means density is infinity. when you add more mass, it's still infinity.

    and to answer your final question, look up the definition of a singularity. logically the only answer is yes.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5
    sory for being stubborn. but wouldnt an entity taking up zero space be impossible?

    the particles are being crushed, but into nothingness?

    if I put this in household terms. gravity is a blender and icecubes are particles. theyre crushed and take less space untill the blender cant break down the icecubes more than into watermolecules.

    now gravity is an intensley more powerful blender in this case ripping particles apart by gravity being more intense on the closer side of the particle than by the far side. but if it takes up no space at all the shredded particles wont even hit the center. there is no way it can. it would miss because you cant collide with something that does not take up space. also it would cease to exist as soon as it accelerates to beyond the speed of light, revolving around the singularity.

    all that being said. please explain why it wouldnt grow in physical size as it swallows matter. I cant fathom the principle that justifys the theory of infinite density in zero space

    sorry if i'm being jumbled. I'm not that good with structurued presentation of what might be going on in my head
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    The infinities are a symptom of the theory braking down at that point. Infinities are generally bad news in physics.

    Although the theory of relativity works perfectly and makes accurate predictions in the macro scale, as soon as the extremities of singularities are involved infinities are produced. That shows that another theory (or expansion of the current model) is required to explain the universe at that scale.

    Like the big bang theory, current models also break down at the point of infinite density/ infinitely small space.
    What is missing is a complete Quantum theory, as classical field models fail at these points.

    There are developments in the mathematics of both QED and string theory which attempt to describe singularities in a way that do not predict impossible scenarios such as infinite density.

    Hopefully one day we will not be talking about infinities when mentioning black holes.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman ThaCrow187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    73
    I was wondering if the Matter collected from a Black Hole could somehow be forming in another of the trillions of universes they say are outside of ours. And when the black hole collapses is the time the pressure holding the matter at the other end gives up expanding equaly in all direction and sealing off the collection of matter needed to start the new universe?
    Mother is the word for God, on the lips and hearts of all children...

    Just call me Yogi, I'll understand your BooBoo...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •