clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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.

  I think you are confusing singularities which are not points (which is
what happens in rotating black holes, AFAIK). Just because the singularity
is not a point (but eg. a ring) doesn't mean it doesn't have zero volume.
A torus can have zero volume if the minor radius is zero (and that, IIRC,
is precisely what the GR equations tell about a rotating black hole).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

> 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.

  I'm not sure what you mean by "ever-shrinking".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message