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

May 28, 2021
4
6
15
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?
 
Last edited:
IMO black hole theory is wrong.
It has so much bad and fixit up math in it and physics breakdowns in the standard model.
Standard model also gets into the problem of infinite density/infinite mass.
Something that isn't seen in the universe because if it was true an infinite density point would consume the universe.

My thought on black holes is they are just a compression of time.
A time well for a lack of a better description.
As they compress so does time/activity so a black hole can never shrink infinite or become an infinite mass point.

No singularity, no physics mystery just an ever deepening time well.
 
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
Thanks for describing what my intuition keeps telling me that BHs must have a horizon/Schwatzchild radius maximum related to its density and speed of rotation ....
Now if this leads to a further collapse and energetic reversal leading to inflation and another universe will be Proven in part of my thesis paper Tension Dark Energy...I will be accepting donations for signed copies.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Thanks for describing what my intuition keeps telling me that BHs must have a horizon/Schwatzchild radius maximum related to its density and speed of rotation ....
Now if this leads to a further collapse and energetic reversal leading to inflation and another universe will be Proven in part of my thesis paper Tension Dark Energy...I will be accepting donations for signed copies.....
Check out (dark flow) for an interesting mystery.
Lots of dark flow around our bb universe
neighbor universes?
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,674
1,426
3,560
It is interesting to me that the first solution of GR was, apparently, from Schwarzschild who predicted black holes. However, his work didn't predict a singularity. Here is a paper that modernizes his work .

"...in Schwarzschild's original 1916 metric solution there is not a 'Coordinate Singularity' located at the Black Hole Event Horizon, but there is an actual quantitative value for space and time, that is predicted there."

Perhaps some new form of degeneracy takes place, as we see for white dwarfs and neutron stars, that prevents infinite densities. If a more massive black hole has a singularity vs. a smaller one, is one infinite density greater than another? Why would one EH be larger in radius than another if they both have the same density at the central point? Not that I understand this stuff in the slightest, but no harm in asking, and a testable answer would be cool to see. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007 and rabsal
Aug 14, 2020
435
90
760
The infinite of dimensionless point 'naked singularity' (at once also the infinity of point infinitesimal singularities) isn't any part of a finite bubble universe (u) above ground Planck level horizon (inside, this side of, single-sided 2-dimensional Big Bang horizon) enclosing our concavity of globe-bubble universe. "Our cave", someone might say. The infinitely flat Universe, infinite in gravity hammered surface extent, can and will double as a 'naked singularity' of "dimensionless" point. The event horizons of blackholes are the equivalent of wormhole horizons, the other end of which is that 'naked singularity' of "dimensionless" point (also the infinity of point infinitesimal singularities); the infinitely flat Universe, infinite in gravity hammered surface extent (infinite density is in the infinity of the gravity hammered "flat-smooth" surface, infinite in extent). You enter into any actual blackhole event horizon you've instantly gone through and come out spread infinitely flat-smooth all over the infinite of flat-smooth infinite Universe (U). It's the irresistible force of the immovable object. It's energyless and, therefore timeless, also therefore lightless, a darkness so dark it disappears in what can only be an Abyss of Big Hole (don't stare into it, it will stare back into you).

The 3-dimensional block of mathematical 'Menger Sponge' is zero in volume and infinite in surface. Look it up, it's easy to find. The same with the 2-d version, the Sierpinski carpet.

The so-called Big Bang could not have inflated (no explosion, they say) without doing so from an implosion as engine of inflation. It could not be continuing in inflation, without continuing in implosion. Inflation to infinity, or forever, means implosion to infinity, or forever. As 'Arnie' said in some movie a long time ago, "No problemo!" Just infinitize the implosion part into an infinity of blackholes throughout all space (spaces) and throughout all time (times); throughout an infinity of finite local bubble universes (the implosion infinitized; the inflation infinitized; energy conserved across the board of the cellular-like divisions to infinity).

Try to pair two point infinitesimal singularities and you spring a vibrating string finite. Succeed in it and they're gone -- maybe! -- in transformation. Now you're on your way to quantum field fluctuation and Planck level (thus BB level) horizon hot blue-white hole jet (here one instant, gone the next, leaving behind the virtual particles that are the primordial base, the primordial soup, the base developmental dimension and stuff of all above them in levels... all the building blocks, all the early generations, of universe (u): An infinity of finite local (foreground) universes (u)).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Helio, " If a more massive black hole has a singularity vs. a smaller one, is one infinite density greater than another? Why would one EH be larger in radius than another if they both have the same density at the central point?" Semantics.

Since there is no such real entity as infinity, one unreal thing cannot be larger than another unreal thing, or of greater density, or whatever. iirc, EH depends on mass, and whilst they may (or may not!) have the same impossible infinite density, they can have different masses and different event horizons. That is just my 'take', whether it be right or wrong.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007 and rabsal
May 28, 2021
4
6
15
If a more massive black hole has a singularity vs. a smaller one, is one infinite density greater than another? Why would one EH be larger in radius than another if they both have the same density at the central point? Not that I understand this stuff in the slightest, but no harm in asking, and a testable answer would be cool to see. :)
Thank you for this. I'll read the paper.

To me, the problem with infinite density is that with infinite density comes infinite gravity. And if we then take a point, say 1mm away from a point at which gravity is infinite, the gravity there must also be infinite. And so on throughout the entire Universe. This result is clearly wrong!

The idea that matter can occupy zero volume is nonsensical because all matter has volume - that's what makes it matter!

My Compressability theorum likens matter undergoing collapse to a building collapsing floor by floor. When one level collapses, it may or may not have sufficient energy to trigger a collapse in the floor below it. If it doesn't, and only one floor is affected, that is akin to a neutron star - i.e. atomic structure ONLY has collapsed. However if there is sufficient energy and the next floor collapses, this is akin to sub-atomic collapse of the quarks themselves. In the same way that a Neutron star is millions of times more dense than a star, collapse at the sub-atomic level too results in an entity that is millions of times more dense than a neutron star. We call this a black hole. And this goes on - sub-sub-atomic, sub-sub-sub-atomic, etc. and This leads to an incomprehensible density involving matter that makes up quarks and of which we do not yet have an understanding.

I believe that in the same way as a neutron star is distinct from a black hole because there has been only one level of collapse rather than several, a two level of collapse black hole is distinct from one where three of four levels of collapse have been experienced.

Extrapolating forward, perhaps only when all the matter in the universe is aggregated into one vast black hole does the mass become so enormous that gravity causes the collapse of so many levels within the structure of matter that energy is released in an enormous explosion. Which we call the Big Bang?!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal
Helio, " If a more massive black hole has a singularity vs. a smaller one, is one infinite density greater than another? Why would one EH be larger in radius than another if they both have the same density at the central point?" Semantics.

Since there is no such real entity as infinity, one unreal thing cannot be larger than another unreal thing, or of greater density, or whatever. iirc, EH depends on mass, and whilst they may (or may not!) have the same impossible infinite density, they can have different masses and different event horizons. That is just my 'take', whether it be right or wrong.

Cat :)
Even living on the top floor of a building Vs the bottom floor on Earth has an event horizon in time.
If we expand that thinking to black holes then the event horizon is just deeper time and every part of a black hole is a new event horizon.

Physics thinking that a black hole is full of matter isn't correct.
Nuclear force is defeated in a black hole so at best a black hole is compressed energy with matter/quarks/leptons/bosons/photons all stripped back to energy.
Could be a semi unstable beast running into another or running into one that is to much E for a defined area.
BB ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
This is great stuff guys but what is the BH /EH density limit? That is the calculation that I need....i will check out the modern Schwartzchild paper and the GR math...and see the vastness of space that my light travels so slowly in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
"but what is the BH /EH density limit?"

I don't know. As it was "infinity" I suppose it is still high.

""In principle, the material in the black hole would continue to collapse all the way to a dimensionless point - a singularity with infinite density and a force of gravity that headed off to infinity as it was approached. In reality, we don't know what would actually happen, because the singularity is an admission that our physics has broken down."

Cat :)
 
May 28, 2021
4
6
15
To be honest, I'm not sure of the relevance of the Menger sponge to the consideration as to whether the mass within a black hole does or does not have volume. It clouds what is to me, an relatively intuitive matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
May 28, 2021
4
6
15
"but what is the BH /EH density limit?"

I don't know. As it was "infinity" I suppose it is still high.

""In principle, the material in the black hole would continue to collapse all the way to a dimensionless point - a singularity with infinite density and a force of gravity that headed off to infinity as it was approached. In reality, we don't know what would actually happen, because the singularity is an admission that our physics has broken down."

Cat :)
But it can't. At the very best, it could TEND towards zero, but it would never become zero. Worse still from the perspective of drawing any solid conclusions, we would have do understand to what extent each level of the structure of matter could be compressed, and since we only know to what extent an atom can be crushed down, we're a long way off understanding.

I know a lot of people are keen to bypass the Pauli exclusion principle by invoking duality, but I think that just leads to bizarre and nonsensical conclusions. Among them, or course, that matter can have zero volume and density can be infinite!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal
Aug 14, 2020
435
90
760
This is great stuff guys but what is the BH /EH density limit? That is the calculation that I need....i will check out the modern Schwartzchild paper and the GR math...and see the vastness of space that my light travels so slowly in.
The famed German mathematician Georg Cantor was the first (known -- that is) to come up with the realization that infinity can and does come in different sizes -- relative to finite, that is. "Potentials" do have proportionality.... more or less.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
But it can't. At the very best, it could TEND towards zero, but it would never become zero. Worse still from the perspective of drawing any solid conclusions, we would have do understand to what extent each level of the structure of matter could be compressed, and since we only know to what extent an atom can be crushed down, we're a long way off understanding.

I know a lot of people are keen to bypass the Pauli exclusion principle by invoking duality, but I think that just leads to bizarre and nonsensical conclusions. Among them, or course, that matter can have zero volume and density can be infinite!
This is what I keep intuiting but I don't know the math...there is a limit already in the paperwork that is the permittivity/permeability constants or the density of space, with a dash of GR/Swartzchild radius and the planck scale and then spacetime can't hold the density and splits open...and Jimi Hendrix jumps out...
I really appreciate all the comments too and I look forward to one day having the "mind-meld"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
Oh I forgot, ...if the math keeps pointing to "infinities" then maybe it is right in that the singularity points to the creation of a new universe, or my theory in general...relatively speaking...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
Not knowing the math I would have to agree with you or think there is a problem in the math, but I am moving to agree with the infinities/singularities in that they predict a Multiverse...or some kind of cyclic thingy...Nigel has is right though but I can't go further until my brainial capacitor absorbs some math...and GR is classical physics and needs a quantum upgrade, -maybe from the speed of light being reciprocally equivalent to the force of resistance to its speed or Dark Energy, which means that lights speed/energy/EM field is inversely proportional to Dark Energy which also points to the Graviton at that energy level...I don't know how that helps though, I just work here...
 
Feb 8, 2021
58
24
35
Right on, but in a couple of years, maybe sooner, I will let you know if they are fictitious or not;)o_O:cool:
 
Not knowing the math I would have to agree with you or think there is a problem in the math, but I am moving to agree with the infinities/singularities in that they predict a Multiverse...or some kind of cyclic thingy...Nigel has is right though but I can't go further until my brainial capacitor absorbs some math...and GR is classical physics and needs a quantum upgrade, -maybe from the speed of light being reciprocally equivalent to the force of resistance to its speed or Dark Energy, which means that lights speed/energy/EM field is inversely proportional to Dark Energy which also points to the Graviton at that energy level...I don't know how that helps though, I just work here...
Here is a crazy thought on speed C.
A quantum leap can move at instant speed from position A to B and no part of between it (gravity form of travel if we can call it travel)
Speed of light a wave/particle traveling from orbit to orbit at it's max speed set by distance and property of fluctuation.
Simple solution self regulated by nature.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Here is a crazy thought on speed C.
A quantum leap can move at instant speed from position A to B and no part of between it (gravity form of travel if we can call it travel)
Speed of light a wave/particle traveling from orbit to orbit at it's max speed set by distance and property of fluctuation.
Simple solution self regulated by nature.
Are you talking about jumping electron orbits in an atom?
 
Are you talking about jumping electron orbits in an atom?
Quantum leaps.
IMO they are a means of travel for both gravity and light.
All depends of interaction or non interaction as to what laws apply.
Going form possible info location for light to info location is C speed.
Traveling between info point as gravity/spooky action does takes no time since it travels in no/space/time.

JMO though but answers a fundamental question about gravity instant info exchange and spooky action.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts