| ▲ | kwoff 8 hours ago |
| Or read Susskind's "The Theoretical Minimum: General Relativity". For a non-spinning blackhole at least, not only is the singularity not a point, it is a surface in time, not space (as the book explains, the space and time coordinates switch places as you cross the event horizon). |
|
| ▲ | pdonis 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > the space and time coordinates switch places as you cross the event horizon If Susskind's book does in fact say that, it's extremely disappointing to me, because, as a number of other GR textbooks will tell you (e.g., Misner, Thorne & Wheeler and Wald, the two great classic GR textbooks), the "switch places" is an artifact of a particular choice of coordinates (Schwarzschild coordinates), and does not represent anything physical. So it's not something that should be relied on. (Not to mention the confusion it causes when pop science sources repeat the statement and then draw all manner of wrong conclusions from it.) The part about being "a surface in time" might be all right, assuming that by that he means "a surface representing a moment in time, not a place in space"--in more technical language, a spacelike surface. That is correct, and it's an invariant that does not depend on any choice of coordinates. But that invariant fact can be described without having to talk about the "switch places" thing at all. |
| |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Kruskal-Szeres coordinates indeed get rid of the wonky coordinate stuff at the event horizon, but if you look at the corresponding diagrams, you'll just end up with the same confusion, because the singularity is still a point (or rather surface) in the future instead of a point in space. The issue is that these diagrams are for eternal, static black holes, which cause diagrams to have these weirdly stretched infinite regions that are quite useful for understanding details of the math, but are highly confusing to laypeople. In fact these diagrams make it look like you'll always fall into the black hole at t=infinity, no matter how far you are away, when in reality you could orbit a static black hole pretty close for eternity. If you really want to get a picture of what is happening, you can look at Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. In particular at a light cone field diagram around a collapsing shell of matter that turns into a black hole. Then this whole stuff suddenly makes sense without even going into the math. You don't just see how an event horizon can form out of nothing, you also see how gravity starts to bend your causal forward light cone (i.e. all points in spacetime with events that you could interact with in the future) inward in such a way that you will necessarily always fall closer to the center of the mass once you pass a certain line (aka the event horizon). No need to deal with those weird infinities or points in time suddenly lying on a different axis. The great Roger Penrose (the same guy who also came up with some of the most confusing diagrams) published a beautiful, simple overview of exactly this stuff in Scientific American: https://www.wkbpic.com/wkbx/SA/1972/1972-05-01.pdf (starting on page 38) Still one of the best things you can read if you don't just want the math. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the singularity is still a point (or rather surface) in the future instead of a point in space. It's a spacelike line on the Kruskal diagram, yes. > The issue is that these diagrams are for eternal, static black holes The full Kruskal diagram is, yes. But the essential features of the black hole portion of that diagram are still there in a black hole that forms by gravitational collapse of a massive body. That includes the singularity being a spacelike line, and there being spacelike curves inside the horizon that are infinitely long. I agree that Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates can help with intuitions about this spacetime geometry as well. | | |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It's a spacelike line on the Kruskal diagram It also is in Schwarzschild coords, so you've gained nothing with respect to the original issue from switching coordinates. Kruskal-Szeres really is only useful for demonstrating that the event horizon is not such a weird place, but it does nothing for the singularity at the center. >the essential features of the black hole portion of that diagram are still there in a black hole that forms by gravitational collapse The issue is even the limited diagram doesn't really show you that and the full one goes crazy with white holes. So not a good place if you don't want to confuse laypeople. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It also is in Schwarzschild coords True--indeed, the statement that it's a spacelike line is an invariant, independent of any choice of coordinates. But it's a lot harder to see that in Schwarzschild coordinates. > Kruskal-Szeres really is only useful for demonstrating that the event horizon is not such a weird place, but it does nothing for the singularity at the center. I disagree, and I think many GR physicists would as well. Indeed, both classic GR textbooks, Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (1973) and Wald (1984) discuss Kruskal coordinates and their associated spacetime diagram (MTW in Box 31.2 and sections 31.5 and 31.5, Wald in section 6.4), and those discussions contain a good deal more than just showing that the horizon is "not such a weird place". |
|
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This doesn't seem meaningfully different to me? Like the notion that the singularity is always in your future (because you can't escape it anymore past the event horizon) makes sense, the point of confusion is what are the implications? Roughly the general public (including me) knows that gravity is meant to have some effect on the apparent passage of time, so it seems significant but under explained what it means to be in a region of space where all possible directions lead to the singularity. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the singularity is always in your future It's not just that it's always in your future in the sense that you can't avoid it. It's that the reason you can't avoid it is that it's a moment of time, not a place in space. You can't avoid it for the same reason you can't avoid tomorrow. And which direction in space you move has no effect on whether or not you reach the singularity for the same reason it has no effect on whether or not you reach tomorrow. | |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >the notion that the singularity is always in your future makes sense But it is just a mathematical artefact of weirdly chosen coordinates. In reality, the singularity is still just a point in space (or a line in spacetime), except that inside the event horizon all paths you are allowed to travel lead to it. There's no need for this whole "space turns into time" notion apart from the fact that you are guaranteed to hit it in *your* future as a local observer. And in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates you can easily see that globally, things simply hit the spatial coordinates of the singularity at certain slices of coordinate time. Other coordinate systems make this whole process seem much more weird than it is. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it is just a mathematical artefact of weirdly chosen coordinates. No, that's not correct. The fact that the singularity is always in your future inside the horizon is an invariant, independent of any choice of coordinates. > the singularity is still just a point in space No, it's not. A point in space would be a timelike line in spacetime. But the singularity is a spacelike line in spacetime. That's a moment of time, not a place in space. > There's no need for this whole "space turns into time" notion That's true; that notion is an artifact of Schwarzschild coordinates. But that does not imply the other claims you are making. > the spatial coordinates of the singularity I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's true that, since the singularity is a spacelike line, you can treat a coordinate that varies along it as a "spatial" coordinate marking different spatial points on the singularity. But the singularity itself is a moment of time (as above, a spacelike line), so it is not a "place", and it does not have a particular set of "spatial coordinates". A spatial coordinate marking different points along the singularity is marking different points in space at a moment of time. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kwoff 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Susskind's book does also mention that the event-horizon shenanigans are due to coordinates and not a physical thing. Certainly I'd trust what he says rather than me, so sorry if I was misleading. (If anyone has the book, it is chapter 6 section "Interchange of Space and Time Dimensions at the Horizon" and the following section points out the singularity is a time (and you can't escape it (in a Schwartzschild model at least) just like you can't escape time). I'm sorry if my wording is still incorrect.). | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Susskind's book does also mention that the event-horizon shenanigans are due to coordinates and not a physical thing. That's good. However: > Interchange of Space and Time Dimensions at the Horizon This still seems misleading to me, because "Dimensions" makes it seem like it's not just an artifact of coordinates--but it is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | SoftTalker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The way Brian Cox puts it, a singularity is a point in time: the end of time. I have trouble really conceptualizing black hole physics, I just think of it as a mass so great that nothing, including light, can escape its gravity. Works for me. |
| |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The singularity in a non-rotating, non-charged black hole is as you say. It’s like in a finite amount of time you “run out of time”, like there isn’t any more time on that trajectory. The singularity in a rotating black hole is entirely different but the interior of classical Kerr (rotating) black holes is one of the most controversial if inconsequential topics in theoretical physics because there are reasons to believe (without real proof mind you) the Kerr solution is unstable inside the inner event horizon so that whatever happens in there is not what that theory says. And of course black holes are quantum objects which might actually have an “interior” entirely different from the classical picture. | | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The more interesting component is that black hole physics is almost an anti-free will zone. Everywhere else in the universe with mass and energy you can do what you want (sort of). An event horizon throws a hard shroud over that and drastically reduces opportunities: your free will to use mass and energy is significantly curtailed (you must head towards the singularity). |
|
|
| ▲ | dash2 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > the space and time coordinates switch places as you cross the event horizon I'm sorry but this is blowing my mind. What??? |
| |
| ▲ | Kranar 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because it's very misleading. Time and space do not switch places past the event horizon. What happens is that the direction/path between an object and the singularity becomes a timelike dimension, and the direction that plays the role of time outside of the event horizon becomes a spacelike dimension. That is not the same as them swapping or that time becomes space and space becomes time not to mention that space has 3 dimensions and time has only 1 dimension so how could they even swap places. Really what it means is that past the event horizon you can use the direction in space between you and the singularity as a way to measure time, specifically the amount of time left before you reach the singularity. It's not so mind blowing when you interpret it that way now is it? You can imagine many things in ordinary life that you use to measure time without claiming that time has literally swapped places with it. On a road trip, the number of kilometres to your exit tells you how long you have left, that's using space as a proxy for time... big deal. The notable difference between a road trip and a black hole is that on a road trip you could stop for a break, you could maybe take a detour, you could decide to go back home... and these would all break your use of space as a proxy for measuring time. Well with a blackhole you can't do any of those things, there is no going back, there is no detour, the relationship between the spatial direction towards the singularity and time is fixed and causal and there's nothing you can do about it. The phrasing used is used almost certainly to evoke some kind of voodoo mind-blowing mystery that completely disappears when you get down to the more strict formalism. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Really what it means is that past the event horizon you can use the direction in space between you and the singularity as a way to measure time That's not correct. There is a relationship between the radial coordinate r you are at and the time it will take you, by your clock, to reach the singularity (at least assuming you are freely falling), but that relationship can't be described the way you are describing it. To put the issue with what you say as starkly as possible: at any event inside the black hole's horizon, there are spacelike curves in every direction from you that will hit the singularity! So "the direction in space between you and the singularity" is not even well-defined. To be clear, you are right that Susskind's statement is very misleading (I posted my own criticism of it upthread). | | |
| ▲ | jimberlage 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Am I understanding this right by thinking - if I was walking toward the black hole past the event horizon, and then I turned around, I would still be walking toward the black hole? | | |
| ▲ | HappMacDonald 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Once you pass the event horizon, every direction leads to the singularity in your future. Directions "away" from the singularity may still visibly show what things looked like outside of the event horizon before you fell in, but that is from your past. Heading in that direction will not get you back there anymore, you will only find the singularity along that path in your future. | |
| ▲ | pdonis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > if I was walking toward the black hole past the event horizon, and then I turned around Note that, once you're inside the horizon, you can't "turn around" and go back outside again. You're inside the hole for good. And once you're inside the hole, yes, no matter which direction in space you move, you're moving "towards" the singularity. But a better way to look at it is that the singularity is a moment of time, not a place in space. You're moving "towards" the singularity in the same sense as you're moving "towards" next Tuesday. You can't stop moving towards next Tuesday by changing which direction in space you move. The same is true for the singularity once you're inside the hole's horizon. | |
| ▲ | shepardrtc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can't turn around though. Everything goes toward the black hole. If you turned around, atoms would be moving away from, or at the least changing their direction in respect to the black hole. And that's not possible. You wouldn't even see anything because all light is going toward the center, and it wouldn't go into your eyes. Unless you went in butt-first, but the path of the photons would have changed and would now be going toward the black hole, and everything would look probably all smushed together. | |
| ▲ | aqfamnzc 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like that would be true if you were inside any closed surface. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not quite: inside a closed surface you can't escape, but things can repeat. You can avoid a coordinate, for example by choosing not to go there, or revisit another one repeatedly. A black hole on the other hand doesn't have that: you cannot revisit old locations - attempting to do so moves you closer to the singularity. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | _moof 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's unfortunately misleading shorthand for what actually happens: space becomes timelike. It doesn't become time. All this means is that once you cross the event horizon, you can only ever move toward the center of the black hole, in the same way that outside of a black hole, you can only ever move toward the future. You might not take a direct route to the center, but no matter which way you move, you will be following a track that ends at the center. The reason this phenomenon has a spooky-sounding name is that it also affects whether two objects can be causally connected. If you can only ever move closer to the center of the black hole, then there are (conceivably) other objects inside the event horizon that you can never have a causal relationship with. But it doesn't mean that space and time literally switch places. | |
| ▲ | MathMonkeyMan 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [This video][1] and the one before it on the playlist are a good no nonsense explanation of the topic. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_2vnb_eVGE | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | metalliqaz 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it might help to think of the singularity as not a point in space but rather a future that cannot be avoided. All possible paths through space and time, no matter what happens, will go towards the singularity. | |
| ▲ | lstodd 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yup. It's that weird. Also read Nick Gorkavyi: The Oscillating Universe: Einsteinian Cosmology of Black Holes and Gravitational Waves |
|