How does relativity "break down" near event horizons?

[Greenlight]

I often hear this but it clashes with my understanding of relativity. Can someone explain how relativity "breaks down" at the event horizon?

 

[Catastrophe]

I think that this may refer to relativity equation(s) requiring division by zero (or similar) which causes physics to break down, since there is no real solution. I.E. this is purely a mathematic operation with no real solution.
Others may have different ideas.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

One event horizon (also "apparent horizon") is the radial line from here and now, everywhere here and now is, to the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) P/BB Horizon. "Everywhere here and now is" just happens to be everywhere every point of the universe is. Can you begin to guess how many offsetting spheres of "observable universe" shell-like-homing 0-point-centers of the universe, and how many of their horizons to collapse in the collapsed cosmological constant of P/BB Horizon Mirror (t=*1*), that is?! My answer, infinities.
----------------------

A peace of tyranny, slavery, and anarchy, is a bad peace.
A war for freedom from tyranny, slavery, and anarchy is a good war.
Even an opening of frontiers, particularly frontier civilization, is a form of war,
costing a war's price, producing a war's dividend..
Peace is never more than an interlude, and the best war,
at once the best peace,
is frontier genesis, creation, and exodus.
-- 'A Combustion Engine Exhaust Unplugged' , Atlan0001

 

[billslugg]

General Relativity does not break down at the event horizon, it breaks down at the center of the BH where there might be a singularity. That's where the "dividing by zero" problem occurs.

 

[Atlan0001]

General Relativity does not break down at the event horizon, it breaks down at the center of the BH where there might be a singularity. That's where the "dividing by zero" problem occurs.

Bill, a black hole is its own 0-dimensional point-singularity in its entirety from the event horizon . . . like any multiverse universe it has no center point inside-out. It is a mass of hyperspatial gravitational folds and nothing from the [outside-in[ can ride -- enter -- straight in but ride, and keep on riding, the curvature of the event horizon and arrive elsewhere in systemic opening (accelerating expansion).

It is the collapsed event horizon (or apparent horizon), or at it, that measures outside-in for mass. The break down of Relativity (collapse of complexity) at the horizon forbids anything else . . . anything like a measurement of any kind inside-out. An infinite / infinitesimal mass-energy density is a vanishingly, immeasurably, big zero of mass-energy density.

In my own modeling I give monopolar point singularity, in enormous varieties of such quantum wave-particle point-portal singularities, both microcosmic and macrocosmic, over to the fifth-fundamental force (as I identify it in zooms up and down scale), the electroweak force.

 

[Catastrophe]

Billslugg, I do not believe that my post #2 in any way disagreed with your post #4.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Billslugg, I do not believe that my post #2 in any way disagreed with your post #4.

Cat

Yes, your post #2 does not disagree with my post #4. But your post #2 does not address the original post's confusion about where the singularity is. It is not at the event horizon but at the center.

 

[Atlan0001]

Yes, your post #2 does not disagree with my post #4. But your post #2 does not address the original post's confusion about where the singularity is. It is not at the event horizon but at the center.

Bill, where is the center-point-singularity of our universe? My claim is our whole "universe" means a "point-singularity" among countless many point-singularities . . . doubling as a "portal" among countless many portals (a point-portal singularity among countless many).

I have it that every point (singularity) of an infinity of points (singularities) is center point (singularity) of the infinity . . .and, all at once; at one and the same time, also an "event horizon."

 

[billslugg]

First, there is no unique "center" of the universe. Every location in the universe, including California, sees the same CMBR, corrected for any local velocity. There is a preferred velocity in the universe, but not a preferred location.
Singularities might be located at the center of each Black Hole, but that is only an assumption. It might be a singularity or it might be a small sphere. No one can actually go there and come back with a hand written report, in ink pen, on lined paper.

 

[Greenlight]

is there any indication that Einstein even believed in singularities? Is it his theory of relativity, or the singularity theory that breaks down?

 

[Atlan0001]

First, there is no unique "center" of the universe. Every location in the universe, including California, sees the same CMBR, corrected for any local velocity. There is a preferred velocity in the universe, but not a preferred location.
Singularities might be located at the center of each Black Hole, but that is only an assumption. It might be a singularity or it might be a small sphere. No one can actually go there and come back with a hand written report, in ink pen, on lined paper.

Bill, you are there. So am I and everyone and everything else except the P/BB Horizon (t=*1*). Hawking's "Grand Central Station" with that damn clock!

 

[Catastrophe]

Billslugg, yr post #7: yes - I purposely avoided the singularity issue, since I have serious doubts. Of course, we cannot actually know anything (imho) about (t = 0) but, for my pennyworth, I lean more towards a nexus, such might 'exist' in a cyclic system (or / such as) (BB/BH) or higher dimensional Klein Bottle.

I like to follow the progression of Moebius Strip to Klein Bottle to possible higher dimensional models - all pure conjecture, of course. Unfortunately, the 'Klein Bottles' one can buy for about $20 are confusing, as these four ('space') dimensional objects do not scrub up well in 3 dimensions.

One has to make do with the oft quoted model of a sphere surface, which has no boundary in its surface (but nevertheless can appear to expand) but whose radius does expand when viewed from one dimension up. This is why I (in my ignorance) do not worry about such questions as "into what does the Universe expand?".

Cat

Question - Condensates | Page 2 | Space.com Forums #47

Page 5 - The cause of Bigbang ?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Post #124

Page 2 - Question - Edgeless universe?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

Post #49.

 

[Gibsense]

billslug points out that the equations of General Relativity make sense until we arrive at the singularity of a Black hole at which point we need to think in terms of Quantum Mechanics. The mass in a black hole is assumed to keep compressing and become smaller and smaller until it is so small it disappears up its own, so to speak. They call this compressed star mass that theoretically must be at the Spacetime Center of a Black Hole, a Singularity. The mass of a black hole star then exists at the singularity + the mass falling in when a black hole is 'feeding'. The singularity cannot be described in terms of General Relativity. It can be imagined in terms of Quantum Mechanics.

The situation a black hole finds itself in is because the star has become so big (massive)that it cannot resist the pull of its gravity compressing it more and more. The star is compressed to the centre of the spherical event horizon (a 4d object, not the 3d centre). So far as I know the event horizon is the radius at which light cannot escape from the black hole due to the compressed star at its centre having gravity sufficient to curve spacetime so extremely that even the apparent speed of light is insufficient for it to escape.
The view of a black hole is possible due to the chaos imposed on any objects closely approaching the event horizon of a spinning black hole. The idea of spin is I think relevant but I become even more ignorant at this point.
ANY Corrections will be appreciated !!