well i was reading on wikipedia about LQG (loop quantum gravity) and this thought hit me.

can a black hole be described as a the smallest possible point in space blown up by gravity?

IE a planck scale point in space wich contains all the matter (singularity) this is regarded as what happens in a black hole.

but can we take this further to describe everything beyond the event horizon?

Uh, I wouldn't take this LQG stuff too serious. It is funny stuff from the mathematical point of view, but it has more or less zero relevance for physics: spin (foam) networks break Lorentz symmetry, which is a well measured and confirmed fact. And there is no way to fix this in LQG, since the core assumption, the quanization of spatial areas, will always break Lorentz symmetry. End of the story.
Unfortunately, there are still nutcases (like Lee Smolin) left who don't want to accept this fact and continue with this bullshit, but every serious physicist has moved on.

my post has actually nothing to do with LQG i was just reading about it when the thought hit me.

LQG has some interesting prospects though, if they can possibly solve quantum gravity in LQG they can get clues as to how it works (i really do doubt it), regardless of wether it breakes Lorentz symmetry or not. it is also very interesting from a mathematical standpoint.

and about scientists, my 2 favorit scientists are:
Edward Witten
Richard Feynman

My post is more about Blackholes and if they can be considered a large - planck space point or not.

Edward Witten did some interesting work on 2+1 dimension black holes, and 1+1 has been solved already.

Dont have time to actually sit down with my maths books and do some trys since im swamped at work for the next 3 weeks.

No, they cannot solve (quantum) gravity, because LQG breaks Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz violation directly contradicts observations and thus instantly kills your theory and you must move on to a different idea. Physics isn't about 'interesting mathematics', it's about describing the real world, and LQG totally fails.


Probably not. The concept of a black hole being a point like object is based on the wrong GR description. It is pretty clear that a correct quantum description will yield a nonzero size above the planck-lenght (but possibly of this order of magnitude), so technically it wouldn't be a black hole anymore (no singularity), althogugh it would look like one to a (classical) observer. You may look into stuff like 'fuzzballs', they were/are(?) quite popular on various gravity/stringy meetings, but I don't have particulary deep knowledge about them.

yeah just like the world being round was ludicrous and coudln't possible be correct since it went against everything before it.... Come on have and open mind.

No, this is different. The round world was 'impossible' back then because of 'political' reasons, it was not refuted by measured facts.

well the major problem as i see it by your statements rolle is this:

LQG breaks global lorentz invariance, same as general relativity.

although it could be argued that local lorentz invariance is not broken in LQG


but if you count off LQG as being a dead end since it breakes global lorentz invariance, you should also count out general relativity.

Wrong again. You should stop parroting wrong wikipedia articles and switch your brain on. LQG even breaks special relativity. Lorentz symmetry must be exact or it is not a symmetry, and LQG spin networks break Lorentz symmetry at the planck scale. It's almost like going back before 1905 and introducing a new aether again, since you create a new preferred frame of reference.

So because LQG breaks Lorentz symmtery you count it off like a dead end. its like saying General Relativity wont lead to anything because it also breaks it.

I have the feeling that this 'discussion' is totally pointless because you have clearly no clue what you are talking about, but instead of learning and doing some research, you prefer to parrot some prefabricated wrong arguments.
Anyway: Lorentz symmetry is the key feature of General relativity, you must have a fundamentally flawed and severe misconception of GR if you think (believe?) that GR breaks Lorentz symmetry.