Does Consciousness Create Time in a Timeless Space?

[Nugatory]

I assumed black holes where spherical,is this not the case or is it just to make it easier to understand?

They are spherical (as long as they aren't rotating). That picture is a space-time diagram, a graph in which time is increasing towards the top of the page. Slice the shape from side to side and you'll get a cross section of the black hole at a particular moment in time. That cross section will be a circle, which is what you'd expect from a cross-section of a sphere. So the diagram shows the collapsing matter shrinking down to a point over time while the event horizon starts as a point and rapidly expands to its final size.

(Actually the idea of a "cross section" of a black hole is very problematic, but we can get it away with it if all we're doing is showing how that diagram shows a spherical black hole forming and expanding to its final size).

 

[BL4CKB0X97]

They are spherical (as long as they aren't rotating). That picture is a space-time diagram, a graph in which time is increasing towards the top of the page. Slice the shape from side to side and you'll get a cross section of the black hole at a particular moment in time. That cross section will be a circle, which is what you'd expect from a cross-section of a sphere. So the diagram shows the collapsing matter shrinking down to a point over time while the event horizon starts as a point and rapidly expands to its final size.

(Actually the idea of a "cross section" of a black hole is very problematic, but we can get it away with it if all we're doing is showing how that diagram shows a spherical black hole forming and expanding to its final size).

Thanks!

 

[PeterDonis]

I had no idea what the letters meant.

See here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/threadprefixes/

 

[PeterDonis]

does anyone know of some reading material that I should read(related to this thread) GR and Schwarzschild

I would recommend Sean Carroll's online lecture notes for a start:

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

 

[SlowThinker]

I would recommend Sean Carroll's online lecture notes for a start:

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

Good luck with that, Blackbox. I tried reading it.
First I got pretty confused with eq. 1.10 where he simply says

One simple variety are the translations, which merely shift the coordinates:
$$x^{\mu}\mapsto x^{\mu'}$$
(Notice that we put the prime on the index, not on the x.)

which does not make any sense at all.
Then I hit the wall at the introduction of cotangent bundle and dual spaces, on page 10 out of 231.
That was the point where I realized I need a better book, but haven't found one yet.

 

[PeterDonis]

I got pretty confused with eq. 1.10

Don't get bogged down in the notation. You could just as easily write $(x, y, z, t) \rightarrow (x', y', z', t')$; that's basically what Carroll means when he says he's putting the prime on the index.

Then I hit the wall at the introduction of cotangent bundle and dual spaces, on page 10 out of 231.

You can actually skim through a lot of the manifold and tensor stuff in chapter 1, just bear in mind that it's there for reference in case you need it while you read later chapters. But you can't expect to get very far in GR without using these tools, so time spent learning them will not be wasted.

That was the point where I realized I need a better book, but haven't found one yet.

If you really want as much of a non-geometric, non-tensor approach as is possible with GR, you could try Weinberg's textbook (it's listed in the Bibliography of Carroll's notes--which, btw, is worth looking through for other possible references in general). But I don't think most readers would say that made it easier.

 

[BL4CKB0X97]

Good luck with that, Blackbox. I tried reading it.
First I got pretty confused with eq. 1.10 where he simply says
which does not make any sense at all.
Then I hit the wall at the introduction of cotangent bundle and dual spaces, on page 10 out of 231.
That was the point where I realized I need a better book, but haven't found one yet.

Thanks for heads up. It's downloaded now I just need the time...

 

[eltodesukane]

I was thinking about being past an event horizon, and recalled that time stops in such a place and physics breaks down.
I am aware that no one would survive such conditions like an event horizon

Physics doesn't breaks down at or beyond the event horizon.
And time doesn't stop for an observer at or beyond the event horizon.
And we can survive at or beyond the event horizon, if the event horizon is large enough and not too much matter is falling through. According to General Relativity, there is nothing special at the event horizon.

 

[phinds]

Physics doesn't breaks down at or beyond the event horizon. And time doesn't stop for an observer at or beyond the event horizon.

Yes, exactly that was said in the second post in this thread. It's a good idea to read an entire thread before replying in it.

 

[BL4CKB0X97]

Physics doesn't breaks down at or beyond the event horizon.
And time doesn't stop for an observer at or beyond the event horizon.
And we can survive at or beyond the event horizon, if the event horizon is large enough and not too much matter is falling through. According to General Relativity, there is nothing special at the event horizon.

I have been informed... Thanks though

 

[jedishrfu]

Since this thread has run its course and the OP's question has been answered, we are closing it to avoid further digression.

Thanks to all who helped answer the OP's question.