Re: Singularity Temperature

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Hi Tim-
        Au contraire.  The harder you squeeze an object, the more you
confine its atoms; by the uncertainty principle they have higher kinetic
energy.  Trouble is, I'm not sure that the foregoing statement makes sense
when the metric is all screwed up.
                        Regards,
                                Jack
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Tim O'Donnell wrote:

> >         The meaning of <at the singularity> is still not
> >         understood.
> > It awaits, in approximately the language of Misner, Thorne
> > and Wheeler, the consummation of the wedding between quantum
> > mechanics and general relativity.
> >         In any event, matters inside the black hole's event
> >         horizon are
> > not observable, so I'm not sure that your question has
> > meaning.  If I were to answer your question "yes" there is
> > no possible experiment that could falsify my answer.
> >                               Regards,
> >                               Jack
> Jack,
> Although once in the event horizon, they may not be
> observable to us, but a lot can be said of what is
> happening to the object.  However at the singularity, all
> bets are off.  My thinking is that it maybe absolute zero,
> because just about everything that can be squeezed out is
> probably long gone.
> Tim

--
While [Jane] Austen's majestic use of language is surely diminished in its
translation to English, it is hoped that the following translation conveys
at least a sense of her exquisite command of her native tongue.
                        Greg Nagan from "Sense and Sensibility" in
                     <The 5-MINUTE ILIAD and Other Classics>