Obviously space does not end with every black hole. For arguments sake I’ll assume the hole is roughly conical, I’m wondering what are the properties of the space behind the “tip” of the cone.
Obviously, IANA quantum physicist. I just can’t believe that nothing is going on right behind a mighty black hole.
Actually, physicists usually consider a black hole to be roughly pointlike (though lately they are leaning towards black holes existing in a more extended form, like a fuzzy sphere). And there is good reason to think that both space and time do end past the event horizon.
So, a black hole is like a small boundary for the universe?
Speculation. Sheer speculation.
Depends on what you mean by a boundary. Clearly there is not nothing beyond the event horizon, but equally clearly, classical notions of what space and time are totally break down there, as well. For the time being physicists are unable to accurately describe what happens past thge event horsizon for the simple reason that the mathematics of both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics break down when we try to apply the equations to the conditions which are believed to exist inside a black hole. A lot of ugly infinities present themselves, telling us that our theories are incomplete. What we need is a quantum theory of gravity, which we may have, in the form of superstring theory, but as of yet, the equations of string theory ares till not fully-formed and are too imprecises to accurately describe the interior of a black hole, yet.
No that’s not true. The math can quite nicely describe the physics inside the event horizon, it’s not till you get to the singularity that all the equations blow up.
I fully understand that there are questions, confusion, uncertainty, and unknown specifics leading up to and including the singularity. This is, however, beside my OP. I question what, if anything, might be behind a singularity. Unless I am missing something obvious, either the back end of a singularity is the end of all that is extant, or, there is something on the otherside. It could be a vacuum, unaffected space, an inverted version of the black hole, maybe leprechauns and fairies.
Stephen Hawking and I are not on speaking terms currently, since I have never met him, but I’m sure that even that “mouthbreather” (if you don’t know which post I’m talking about, please disregard this) has at least a theory. Is this unknowable? Is that a word?
What is behind geometric point? That is basically what you’re asking. The answer is nothing; it doesn’t have a “behind”.
Take the rubber sheet analogy to the extreme. An infinitely dense point appears, sinks (pulling the sheet tight) to an infinite point. Quick! What’s behind the point?
Grey, either you’re way beyond me, or way beneath me. What is behind anything concieveable is either something, or nothing.
Your analogy escapes me. If you say that my “geometric point” doesn’t have a behind, than what is there?
If I remeber my geometry correctly, any 2 lines that are not parrallel, will intersect at some point…creating a “front” and"back" inreference to black holes. Parallel lines are tracks, paths, or simple vectors (guess, I’ve never taken a physics course, ever).
If I’m not mistaken, a location contains either something, or does not exist. So, following that reasoning, either black holes are the ends of the universe, or they are dimensional, and things exist on the other side of them.
Jeez, I can’t believe I’d have to reduce this, think of space as an infinitely enormous cube. Either a black hole exists within the cube, or it connects with the side of the cube which is equivalent to nothingness.
If I can make my question any more clear, please God, let me know how.
Show me the front of an infinitely long line.
I’m not deliberately trying to be obtuse; I am beat and should be in bed but…
A black hole is basically space-time collapsed to a geometric point; a singularity. Your cone picture is good but only for a 2-D universe. A particle in that universe can only move in either the x or y direction (as defined by the surface). A particle in your model would slide across the surface to the apex of the cone. At that point it’s finished moving, there is no x or y direction it could go as it is trapped at a single point. Now when you extend that into 3-D, the picture gets funny (and I’m too tired).
I suppose that if we could exist in 4 dimensions that there might be a “behind” to the 3-D universes point but ultimately a path would lead to the final 4-D universe’s sticking point.
Sorry if that’s confusing. Off to bed.
Good lord, I can’t distill this point anymore without …ahhrrrrrgh, Jesus Christ, fucking listen for a second. Very sorry, seems like I’m trying to explain the concept of a cube, when the only thing people seem to understand is a square.
Black holes for children: at some point, things enter a black hole, we will call this the “front” of the black hole. At some point, either the black hole ceases to exist, or there is something else there, we’ll call this the “back” of the black hole. If there’s nothing behind the singularity, then it doesen’t exist right?
Such headaches.
Duality.
Black holes are shaped a lot like stars, and the singularity is a point at the center. So what you’re asking sounds to be like, “What’s on the other side of the center of a star?” Do you realize how silly this sounds?
First off calm down, no one here is trying to piss you off and your reactions are way out of line. Let’s right it off to the hour.
I was thinking about what you are trying to say. I think it goes like this (I’ll use your cone imagery)
Imagine a black hole is shaped as the surface of a cone. Particles enter and “fall” along the surface to the tip of the cone. Now, what is on the other side of the tip (i.e. if a line shot out of the tip where would it go)?
Ok, I hope I paraphrased that right. The answer of course is the geometry of the surface does not allow for movement in a line away from the tip. There is no z direction for the particle to go; it is trapped by definition in a 2-D surface.
I think what’s throwing the OP is that ubiquitous (and wrong) rubber-sheet anaology for the way mass bends space. Put a massive object on a stretched rubber sheet and it indents it, with the size of the indentation corresponding to the mass of the object. A black hole would distort the sheet so much that it would form an essentially infinitely-deep cone. The problem with this, is that it’s a two-dimensional representation of what’s happening in three dimensions. It can’t be taken literally.
Yeah I noticed I didn’t focus on the “surface” of the cone in my first reply. Maybe the second one help.
dnooman your frustration is caused by two things. 1) We’re trying to describe something we can’t describe and 2) our experience in the real, physical world contradicts what we know about sub-atomic physics and cosmology.
If I ask you what is at the end of an infinitely long line, what would you answer? Then I say, yeah, but if I keep going an infinite amount of time and get to the end, what’s there?
That’s what’s on the other side of a singularity. You can’t get there from here. There’s a lot of speculation (the stuff that goes into a singularity comes out in another universe, etc.) but no reason that I’ve heard to believe anything. If you want the simple answer: “We don’t know.”
I’ve heard that too, but if that where the case, why havent we found one spweing IN to our universe?
Well, the Big Bang is more similar to a white hole than to a black hole, but in reality it’s not like either one. So why did I post this? I have no idea. Please completely disregard this entire post.
maybe we have. quasars are pretty energetic.