Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 18 Jun '08 18:22
    I have began to study these. They are very interesting. The idea of a "point" having that much influence is fascinating.
  2. 18 Jun '08 18:36
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I have began to study these. They are very interesting. The idea of a "point" having that much influence is fascinating.
    I'm not so sure that they really are points with mass. I think this is a simplification so the calculations for the mathematicians won't be too hard to solve. What what would I know...?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Jun '08 16:54
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm not so sure that they really are points with mass. I think this is a simplification so the calculations for the mathematicians won't be too hard to solve. What what would I know...?
    The idea they keep pushing is infinite density, I think that is just a sign we don't know what we are talking about yet.
  4. 19 Jun '08 18:13
    I have a few problems with black hole theory.

    The first one being, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, any heat created from the collision of particles would not be able to escape the event horizon and would just accumulate within the black hole.

    The second, if the mass is compacted to a point then there is no free movement between electrons and ions which would suggest that point would be frozen.

    Over the life time of a black hole it should have a balanced temperature of neither hot or cold.

    Or am I just completely mad and worthy of the mockery of my peers?
  5. 19 Jun '08 18:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Woodgie
    I have a few problems with black hole theory.

    The first one being, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, any heat created from the collision of particles would not be able to escape the event horizon and would just accumulate within the black hole.

    The second, if the mass is compacted to a point then there is no free movement between electron ...[text shortened]... re of neither hot or cold.

    Or am I just completely mad and worthy of the mockery of my peers?
    Let's say for the discussion that the density is not infinite...

    Matter of it's usual form, like electrons and ions doesn not exist in this extremely high density.
    If we go to the matter in the deeper regions, but not centre, of a neutron star, there are no electrons at all, nor protons. Everything are neutrons. So in this sense a neutron star is one of a heck big atom alltogether.
    If we go even deeper into a neutron star, no one knows exactly wat's in there, I've heard the expression of 'quark soup' that implies that the structure, not only within the atom, but within the very neutrons are scrambled, quarks being free particles, and the particles of neutrons are smeared out, lacking individual distinction.

    When we go inte even higher densities, inside a black hole, in the center where the mass is concentrated, we have an even more exotic state of matter. Of what? Does anyone know?
    I think we have to lean against the string theory's not yet discovered properties.

    But again - what do I know...?
  6. 19 Jun '08 20:30
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Let's say for the discussion that the density is not infinite...

    Matter of it's usual form, like electrons and ions doesn not exist in this extremely high density.
    If we go to the matter in the deeper regions, but not centre, of a neutron star, there are no electrons at all, nor protons. Everything are neutrons. So in this sense a neutron star is one ...[text shortened]... inst the string theory's not yet discovered properties.

    But again - what do I know...?
    I would go with that.
    To keep it simple, it all boils down to magnetism and what is it?

    super string=some sort of coagulation of varying degrees of magnetic flux?

    I think the simple experiment of water in a cup, evaporating due to the heat of the sun holds the answer to the soup of black holes.
  7. 28 Jun '08 01:22
    Originally posted by Woodgie
    I would go with that.
    To keep it simple, it all boils down to magnetism and what is it?

    super string=some sort of coagulation of varying degrees of magnetic flux?

    I think the simple experiment of water in a cup, evaporating due to the heat of the sun holds the answer to the soup of black holes.
    Remember that drinking and posting is very wrong as I have demonstrated here.
    Let that be a lesson to all of us.
  8. Standard member StarValleyWy
    BentnevolentDictater
    04 Jul '08 01:14 / 4 edits
    Kip Thorne and Steven Hawking say that there are only two things that CAN be known about a blackhole. Mass is one and Spin is the other. Time does not exist, so anything to do with "location", "duration" or "cause" or "eventuality" or "force" or "power" are imaginary as physics defines or relates all of these as "over time" or "at the moment when".

    If they are correct, then once one attains "singularity", one would be in exactly the same state as a photon crossing the universe in as much as in neither case does time exist. One thing I have always had trouble with is equating how an infinitely massless photon and an infinitely massed singularity appear to be the same thing as relates to time/space. Weird. Infinitely "small" objects out of "time".

    That is what makes black holes so simple to understand and at the same time almost impossible to come to grips with. Our very consciousness REQUIRES time, by it's very definition -- should one feel comfortable in the notion that consciousness is the awareness of the passage of time.

    So I guess the best we can do is go totally groovy hippy on it all and say "Hey Dude! Black holes are just righteously, unconsciously bodacious dudes, dude!"

    edit... I realized a mistake in saying that once one passes the event horizon time stops. It does not. But... Time begins to slow in exponential form to the "nearness" to center of mass... or singularity. Now, I leave it to the reader to dig out the meaning of "nearness" as time approaches zero and mass increases ... to whatever it approaches in singularity.
  9. 04 Jul '08 07:31
    Originally posted by nihilismor
    I have began to study these. They are very interesting. The idea of a "point" having that much influence is fascinating.
    Black holes are not 'points' nor do they have infinite mass as some here have suggested.

    Black holes have a size (the radius of the event horizon), mass etc. What makes them so special is the fact that they bend space so much that nothing can escape them - not even light. However, energy can escape them via quantum processes.

    The physics is a little weird at the event horizon, but inside the black hole the physics is really no different from outside except for the extremes involved.

    There are no infinities involved!
  10. 05 Jul '08 13:46
    At the event horizon there are the same spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticles as in the remainder of space. But once in a while these antiparticles and particles happen to pass the way so that the antiparticles move inside the black hole and the particles of course move the opposite direction. Thus in effect the black hole is "radiating" a certain amount of energy. And as well the mass of the black hole is decreasing. You can if you have the mass of the black hole calculate the time at which it will cease to be.

    I believe it is something like 10^50 years or something astronomical though. This is what i heard a long while ago but I'm not sure if new research differs.

    And one funny thing i heard about it was that this radiation is in line with what thermodynamics predicts, I don't know much about that but it struck me as funny. Don't mess with thermodynamics :p
  11. 05 Jul '08 13:53
    Originally posted by Tera
    At the event horizon there are the same spontaneous creation of particles and antiparticles as in the remainder of space. But once in a while these antiparticles and particles happen to pass the way so that the antiparticles move inside the black hole and the particles of course move the opposite direction. Thus in effect the black hole is "radiating" a certain ...[text shortened]... , I don't know much about that but it struck me as funny. Don't mess with thermodynamics :p
    Micro Black Holes are produced naturally when cosmic high energy particles strike our atmosphere, and artificially when high energietic particles are smashed inot one onother in the Cern laboratory in Geneva (and other large accelerators).

    Micro Black Holes disappear quite quickly (in a matter of microseconds or less), due to Hawking radiation (described in the latest posting). So the time of 10^55 years, well, it depends of the mass of the black hole.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 Jul '08 05:25
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Micro Black Holes are produced naturally when cosmic high energy particles strike our atmosphere, and artificially when high energietic particles are smashed inot one onother in the Cern laboratory in Geneva (and other large accelerators).

    Micro Black Holes disappear quite quickly (in a matter of microseconds or less), due to Hawking radiation (describ ...[text shortened]... the latest posting). So the time of 10^55 years, well, it depends of the mass of the black hole.
    Thinking about those microholes, if our universe is the other side of a black hole, what about these micro dudes?
    I wonder what conditions in our universe that creates black holes would also give rise to another universe inside it. That is to say, not every black hole would give rise to a new universe, maybe a certain mass threshold has to be crossed before a new universe pops out or maybe a little universe happens all the time in all black holes but like the micro's, they only last a few nanoseconds but in the time frame inside the black hole, a universe forms and dies but can't say, have matter because it's not massive enough. Maybe it's the super massive ones that collide together or something, pass a certain threshold of mass/energy to make a real universe from the old one.
  13. 06 Jul '08 08:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Black holes are not 'points' nor do they have infinite mass as some here have suggested.

    Black holes have a size (the radius of the event horizon), mass etc. What makes them so special is the fact that they bend space so much that nothing can escape them - not even light. However, energy can escape them via quantum processes.

    The physics is a little ...[text shortened]... different from outside except for the extremes involved.

    There are no infinities involved!
    Infinity is a purely mathematical concept in my opinion.
  14. 06 Jul '08 08:54
    Originally posted by UzumakiAi
    Infinity is a purely mathematical concept in my opinion.
    Agree.

    When you come up with infinity as a solution in an equation in physics, then you can be sure of that there are things yet to discover. When you've found them and enter this in the equation, then you get a physical solution that is more reliable.

    I don't believe in an infinitly small object with infinitly densed energy at t=0 in the BigBang.
    I don't believe in an infinitly small object with infinitly densed energy at the center of a BlackHole.
    I believe that there is something about these objects that we don't yet fully understand.
  15. Standard member flexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    06 Jul '08 09:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ... However, energy can escape them via quantum processes.
    ...
    Hawking radiation has never been seen, and is not predicted by all theories ... stuff being sucked in has been seen to radiate before it crosses the line.