Mental Health Peer Support Worker, Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust

This conversation is closed.

## What is the best 4th dimensional representation of a gravitational singularity?

Octachorons represent geometric concepts in 4D space. If a blackhole had such a shape, what would it be? I'm looking for links, because I'm a bit stumped as to what to Google for.

The idea that I had is that a blackhole is said to portend infinite density, but what if that could become infinite complexity? Infinite complexity to my mind could portend an irreplenishable fuel cell. I'll elucidate more if asked, but for now I've just woken up and am trying to string thoughts together.

• #### Christophe Cop

• +1
Jul 29 2013: I don't know about representations. And I have troubles accepting the idea of an infinitely dense singularity... That would imply even Planck's constant is violated... I tend to see it as something very finitely small and finitely dense.
This means it also has finite complexity and it can only generate a finite amount of energy.
• #### Matthew Newman

• 0
Jul 29 2013: Well, I didn't say a black hole was infinitely dense, particularly, just that I see the possibility of infinite density reflected in a gravitational singularity. The 4D part is important, here; I do have a hypothesis based on the mass of gravitons which would tie that together, however.

As for infinite complexity, I think you're thinking about this all wrong. You need to be thinking inside out. I believe infinite motion + infinite possibilities == infinite complexity without them being part and parcel of the other side of the equation.

As for 4D representations of gravitational singularity, it might be moot to say that a black hole can be represented by a 4D figure, but the existence of 4D geometric figures in of themselves is hypothetical to their greater extent. In the end, 4D figures only exist to us as mathematical formulae in the first place. 1 + 1 = 2?
• #### Christophe Cop

• 0
Aug 3 2013: Isn't adding another dimension in mathematics adding a degree of freedom?
in that sense, you should be able to say what that parameter is or implies.

as for infinite: what kind of infinite are you referring to?
Infinite motion depends on infinite time, which we don't seem to have in our universe.
Infinite possibilities... I think possibilities are at least bounded... and given the idea that there is no real infinity, any finite permutation is still finite...

I can make 3D projections of 4D objects, though I could simulate such an object if I take time as part of the object and even rotate the axis of time/spatial to change perspectives. This would give you short existing objects so it can be rendered (with difficulty of course)
• #### Matthew Newman

• 0
Aug 7 2013: Sorry it's taken me 4 bloody days to get back to you... it's been a madhouse around here.

Infinity, to me, is only a concept in of itself. Infinity is immeasurable because we do inhabit finite space and our linear conception of time gradually evolves. I do, however, think finite permutations only exist as we find them in relative space.

Although we can profess to have limited capacity for movement, a true permutation is not something which I see as needing to exceed finite boundaries, but multiplying with those finite boundaries infinitely. I'd always thought of the universe as a square of limited proportion continually expanding into itself. It's all down to how complicated you want/need to make it.

'Degrees of freedom' are important here. Since our perception of space-time is stilted we, to cut a long story short, cannot be privy to all of this majesty at once. Hence we have to find a hypodimensional representation of what's going, which would be the algorithm to describe the changes of your 3D representation of a 4D object, which hence exists in concept to us only.

I realise this leads to more questions rather than a finite answer, but this is why I hold that infinite possibilities are what it says on the label. I'll try to make more sense at a later time.

• #### Tify Ndanoboi

• 0
Jul 29 2013: and how can you believe in a soul when you have not seen it.