The two main focus questions:

  • Could a snake theoretically devour itself whole?
  • Does a black whole actually have infinite density and zero volume?

Everything below is just extra explanatory steps on how I tried to solve these questions myself logically and how I logically drew the analogous relationship between these two questions.

I had this weird thought regarding a snake that decides to eat itself kind of like an Ouroboros but hungrier and more committed to consume itself whole. And so imagining, this snake continue to eat itself so much that the loop created in the center starts to get smaller if this was a real life snake it would have stopped after a while constraints from physics and biology (flexibility) but I want to throw out both out the window for now because in real snakes would have a constraint and by the time they are even a quarter way through eating themselves they would digest themselves and die before they could go any farther.

Anyways, through out my thought process I would be caught up as to how the mouth of the snake would ingest the face then the mouth because the mouth is responsible for eating (which seems paradoxical and multiplicative), but I realized I should have known better because the problem was because of the constraint of the length of the body before the hypothetical snake was going to reach its head it has to close the loop formed by its body to even get near to the base of its head there would technically be no open space in the loop formed by the snake which led me to the notion that given the hypothetical flexibility/elasticity and even compression the snake would continue on its mission to devour itself making the body tighter and tighter as time goes on it would get infinitely tighter making different sections of the body compress each other and this process can go on infinitely but this also means the snake's mouth won't ever fully reach its head again and partially this is because it could infinitely forgo its journey towards its head and infinitely keep compressing, but nevertheless wouldn't be able to devour itself completely i.e., including its mouth, this is what I think but I am not sure, correct me if I am wrong.

Now applying a similar analogy to black holes, it is evident that before the Black Hole was a radiant star that eventually becomes a neutron star that eventually collapses due to gravity to become a black Hole, sometimes if the mass of the star is big enough it collapses straight towards a black hole. Now my problem with understanding the concept of a black hole is its infinite density that results from the collapse due to the immense gravity exerted by the mass of the Star's contents. The core of the problem is reconciling gravitational force as a timed phenomena (force acting over a period of time) with infinite density i.e., 0 volume meaning all that mass occupies 0 space (collapse to zero space), which is really baffling to me, because for one this means that space cannot be granular to say so would be a contradiction, but also using Calculus and the definition of a black hole one can only say that the singularity is getting smaller and smaller with time generating an infinite density but never reach zero space because if doing so it would mean it is non-existent and the mass has been destroyed and lost because mass needs to occupy space in a classical sense.

In summary, the problem I am having is reconciling the temporal process of gravity on the collapsing of the star and its gradual progression into a black hole and consecutively the mass of the singularity and region of space it occupies with time. The definitions of these things seem to be clashing with one another for me. Obligating me to throw out the notion that space is granular, but the problem is that I think I don't know something crucial, missing something or I am wrong.

So here let us analogously state that the snake is really fast to the point it takes it a similar time as a star to collapse into a black hole, if we do so and consider the snake to be like a black hole then it would never reach it's mouth; specifically I can't see anyway it does maybe I am wrong, please correct me. The only reason why I think this analogy would fail is that inside a black hole space-time is involved so talking about the temporality of the collapse of a star would be tricky because we can't really know how time behaves because time itself is being manipulated in some sorts.

The second reason why I think it fails (even though we consider our Ouroboros to be suspended in real space-time) is that our star needs immense mass to collapse into a black hole but I am claiming that our Ouroboros with not even a quarter of that mass to be able to become a singularity, but again I am substituting the necessity of gravity with the Ouroboros' immense drive to consume itself whole.

To summarize the conundrum of thoughts written above: the black hole's singularity will not have infinite density i.e., zero volume, space is not granular and the snake will never attain its goal i.e., will not consume itself whole but will be a wonderful representation of Sisyphus. Is this a logical take away, what am I missing?

Through the generation and continuation of this thought process I got into a sort of ambiguity and I wasn't sure if I was being logical enough, I also thought that there might be a similar problem (to the Ouroboros) that already exists in philosophy and so I would appreciate any references.

2 Answers 2


Philosophy will furnish no useful insights on this topic. Physics will.

  • I think philosophy will help because I am trying to build a hypothetical model that could help me understand but I am trying to see if my model is even proper to start with, at the heart of the question is my wrestle with understanding infinity and how it applies to concepts in "real" life like black holes. I think philosophy will help especially logic, to pick apart if my model building was logical enough and sound.
    – How why e
    Commented Apr 11 at 3:16
  • 2
    There is infinite density in our models of black holes, that doesn't mean that there is necessarily infinite density at the center of a real black hole. The maths breaks down at the singularity, but there is always the possibility that the model is wrong or problematically incomplete (all models are incomplete). You need physics to answer that (c.f. Planck distance?), not philosophy. It is important to distinguish the model from reality. Commented Apr 11 at 9:49
  • @DikranMarsupial I understand this is a model but Science is about making models that best fit reality isn't that the whole purpose if not then why are Scientists giddy every time they discover things that fit their theories and models. I also want to build a model so that I can understand (which best fits) the consensus model held by cosmologists (and in turn best fits with reality), but if different parts seem to be contradicting to me, I ought to ask if it was my model's problem or the consensus'.
    – How why e
    Commented Apr 11 at 10:05
  • 1
    @Howwhye I suspect most scientists view infinities cropping up in their models as evidence that there is a problem with their models. This is not generally communicated in popular science books/documentaries, which like to have impressive CGI and hyperbole that readers often prefer to the more mundane scientific view. Only bad scientists get giddy when things fit their theories (somewhere between "oh, good" and "meh" is the correct response). Good scientists get giddy when they don't fit - it means you may have found something interesting. Commented Apr 11 at 10:13
  • 2
    "I ought to ask if it was my model's problem or the consensus'." this is a false dilemma. If the best model we currently have is not reliable at the singularity, it is still likely to be the one that the consensus would be right to choose. As GEP Box said "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Commented Apr 11 at 10:18

A black hole does not have infinite density. The density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of the radius, so bigger black holes have less density:

enter image description here

You really should look into mathematics to make any conclusions about black holes.

But even if General Relativity predicted infinite density somewhere, it would only indicate that the theory is not applicable at that scale. At small scales quantum mechanics comes into play.

For instance, does electron have infinite density? We cannot say so, because it does not have a wave function spatially localized at one point.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .