Jump to content

How does General Relativity predict zero volume/infinite density of Black holes?


Recommended Posts

There is an assertion that General Relativity predicts that black holes have zero volume, so by extension that their density is infinite. However, my understanding is that this line of thought violates the Compressability level theory of matter, so cannot be correct.

Clearly, the density of neutron stars, for example, is the result of the matter within them having been compressed to the level that there is virtually no space between the nucleii of the atoms themselves. However, the subatomic particles that make up the protons/neutrons of those nucleii, and the forces between those particles, remain essentially unaffected. Accordingly, neutron stars are an example of matter having attained the first compressibility level - they have huge density and leave a very "deep dent" in spacetime.

Within Black holes, however,higher compression levels have been achieved, whereby the sub-atomic (and sub-sub-atomic particles etc.) have been crushed together in the same way as the nucleic within a neutron star. They have achieved compression level n, and therefore by examination, the number of levels of matter that have ben collapsed can be inferred.

We know that General Relativity does not align with Quantum theory, and scientists have been focusing on what might be wrong with Quantum theory as a result. However, I believe they are looking in the wrong place, which is why they have not yet found the answers. If General Relativity is right and the density of a singularity is infinite, the size of the event horizon of the Black hole would also be infinite. Since this is patently false it warns of the naivity of throwing the term "infinite" around in cosmology. Furthermore of course, an infinite force would be required to compress matter into an infinity small space. Ergo, singularities cannot have zero volume.

So how does General Relativity predict zero volume, when the volume predicted should be incredibly small, but clearly not zero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nigel Denning said:

There is an assertion that General Relativity predicts that black holes have zero volume, so by extension that their density is infinite. However, my understanding is that this line of thought violates the Compressability level theory of matter, so cannot be correct.

Clearly, the density of neutron stars, for example, is the result of the matter within them having been compressed to the level that there is virtually no space between the nucleii of the atoms themselves. However, the subatomic particles that make up the protons/neutrons of those nucleii, and the forces between those particles, remain essentially unaffected. Accordingly, neutron stars are an example of matter having attained the first compressibility level - they have huge density and leave a very "deep dent" in spacetime.

Within Black holes, however,higher compression levels have been achieved, whereby the sub-atomic (and sub-sub-atomic particles etc.) have been crushed together in the same way as the nucleic within a neutron star. They have achieved compression level n, and therefore by examination, the number of levels of matter that have ben collapsed can be inferred.

We know that General Relativity does not align with Quantum theory, and scientists have been focusing on what might be wrong with Quantum theory as a result. However, I believe they are looking in the wrong place, which is why they have not yet found the answers. If General Relativity is right and the density of a singularity is infinite, the size of the event horizon of the Black hole would also be infinite. Since this is patently false it warns of the naivity of throwing the term "infinite" around in cosmology. Furthermore of course, an infinite force would be required to compress matter into an infinity small space. Ergo, singularities cannot have zero volume.

So how does General Relativity predict zero volume, when the volume predicted should be incredibly small, but clearly not zero?

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. But we also know that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck level. Physicists today don't accept any singularity as defined by infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature....The only obvious singularity is one that is defined by where our known laws and GR fail us, that is at the quantum/Planck level.

Accepting this more correct knowledge re BH's, logically then it can be suggested that we do have a surface of sorts, at or below the quantum/Planck level.

 

I also  am not sure about your claim that physicists are focusing on what might be wrong with QT...we know that both despite being still approximations, do a damn good job withing their parameters of applicability.

Finally comment with regards to Neutron stars and BH's and compressability, the two things that determine that are EDP [Electron Degeneracy Pressure] white Dwarf stars, NDP [Neutron Degeneracy Pressure] Neutron stars and when that is exceeded we get a BH.

1 hour ago, Nigel Denning said:

So how does General Relativity predict zero volume, when the volume predicted should be incredibly small, but clearly not zero?

So in answer to that is it predicts total further collapse when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, but fails us at the quantum/Planck level, where as mentioned we might have a surface or conglomeration of matter in an unknown state.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.