Singularity shape

[questionposter]

When a black hole sucks something up and an object crosses the event horizon, the event horizon is temporarily deformed bear that point where it crossed, until the matter reaches the center. This notion is important because it says that the shape of the black hole in a way mimics that of the shape of the internal structure. Since a black hole on it's own is at least a sphere, the singularity must be at least sphere in order to warp space time to creat a sphere. But, the warping of space is a little more complex than that, the warping of space mimics a conical structure as well, however it is a cone from every side, so the internal structure must also be infinitely cone-like in some way. A black hole in of itself is it's own shape, however, we can break it down into it's component shapes, which leads me to think that actual shape of a singularity is the sum of polynomial planar structures to describe the curvature of it's space. I would do the actual math for it, but I don't really know much about the math of space that warped.

Thinking about it, we can't see an object with 4th dimensional units that would be described like X^4, but we can break it down into (x^2)(x^2) and we can see those things as planes. Only with this, we just have to work from (x^2)(x^2) to x^4

Edited May 6, 2012 by questionposter

[md65536]

Disclaimer: I am an idiot.

 

The geometrical shape of a black hole's center is a point singularity, right?

A point singularity* can have a different topological shape without having geometry, however. It can have any shape. Yes, a point is a degenerate sphere, but it is also a degenerate of many other 3D shapes (anything closed maybe?).

 

From outside the horizon, the distance to any part of the black hole's center (point) will be the same as to any other (since it's a point singularity all its mass or parts are at the same spatial location), which means its shape has no bearing on distance-related measurements. So gravitational force at a specific distance r (ie. from any point on a sphere of radius r surrounding the BH) will be the same as any other point at the same distance. The external gravitational influence of a BH's point singularity would be spherical regardless of its topological shape.

 

 

 

* Though not necessarily a black hole singularity... I don't know enough to say what the topology of a BH may or may not be.

Edited May 7, 2012 by md65536

[HenryB]

Disclaimer, I am an idiot, too.

 

 

Apparently a singularity, for lack of a more descriptive term, is a very dense point around which suns orbit. Our sun supposedly orbits around a point in space about thirty thousand light years away (70,000 orbits in all since the big bang). They say black hole force fields swallow up the stuff contained in these dense points.

 

 

But what does that point in space orbit around? Whatever it is it must be some strong singularity, or one strong ass, hole.

 

 

Is the singularity growing from that strong ass, hole stationary? My guess is that it is.

 

 

My guess is that we are like the Uwhackit bird that flies in ever decreasing concentric circles until it flies right up its own ass hole.

 

 

[md65536]

On the other hand...

 

 

In another thread's post I linked to some explanation about how the information we get about what's inside a black hole comes from its horizon, not from inside (as no typical useful information can escape). So then I suppose that the gravitational attraction of a black hole would be determined by the density of matter as it falls into the event horizon?

 

Now I'm completely lost, but would we have to separate a black hole's singularity (which would have a spherically symmetrical gravitational field, and the field is static so we don't need to have information about it transmitted from inside the black hole because that information is already available outside it) from the matter that falls in and appears to get stuck on the horizon (which would not be spherically symmetrical? and so the overall gravitational field around the horizon wouldn't be spherically symmetrical?)?

 

 

Another aspect to this is the holographic principle, which says something like that every point on the horizon maps to every point of a black hole's interior and vice versa. I think this would imply that any shape that the horizon may have, can be completely independent from any shape that the interior may have.

 

So like, if you had a horizon made of say a sponge, it's not like the singularity is just that sponge squished to a point.

It's also not like silly putty, where the shape of the horizon is stretched or twisted into a modified shape.

It's also not even like lego, where the horizon is chopped into pieces and those pieces rearranged into a new shape.

It would be like if it was made of lego, and you blended up all the pieces and made new pieces out of them, so that every individual new piece of lego has a bit of every piece of the whole original structure in it.

 

But you could still build the original shape with the new pieces, so I suppose it doesn't answer the question.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, in conclusion I think you're probably right that a black hole's gravitational field may have a non-spherical shape to it, but I don't think that that tells you anything about a topological shape of its singularity.