|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 22.07.2010 22:17, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:18:50 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Because you can't have a huge bunch of particles in a space of zero
>> volume.
>
> I'm not a physicist (though I know a few people who are), but ISTR
> reading/hearing that a 'singularity' isn't defined as a space with zero
> volume. It's a very densely packed collection of matter, but not with
> zero volume.
Actually, AFAIK a "singularity" is defined as any condition in which the
formulae of a theory don't give any meaningful answer.
In GR, you can pack matter arbitrarily dense in any non-zero volume
without the formulae breaking down, so no - I guess you're wrong.
However, you may be not so far off the mark regarding black holes:
AFAIK, those indeed typically have a non-zero (though ever shrinking)
volume, as in order to form a true singularity you'd need a neatly
symmetric collapse.
Thus, the problem with black holes is probably not the singularity /per
se/: To me it looks like that's a purely academic issue because there
bloody likely aren't any such beasts out there in reality. Instead, the
problem with black holes is that ever-shrinking thing, which doesn't go
along well with QED's prediction of a lower bound on distances.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |