[jeremyb]

I seek some answers to the unknown (to me that is)

Quote

A star is born when atoms of light elements are squeezed under enough pressure for their nuclei to undergo fusion. All stars are the result of a balance of forces: the force of gravity compresses atoms in interstellar gas until the fusion reactions begin. And once the fusion reactions begin, they exert an outward pressure. As long as the inward force of gravity and the outward force generated by the fusion reactions are equal, the star remains stable.

My questions:

• Do black holes have this outward pressure?
  
• How is a super massive black hole born?
  
• Is it possible that the big bang was nothing more than a really big super massive black hole that exploded rather than evaporating?

Some theories that I have seen say that the big bang from an object that was very very small, yet very very dense and contained all of the mass we currently have in the universe, I just do not buy that theory, at least not yet.

In order for me to understand what the big bang, I try to understand what it was before it exploded. What would contain a universe's mass, and why? Currently we know that the greater the mass of an object, the more gravitational pull it has, size does not matter here. So when you read the topic title "Maximum Mass and the Big Bang" you could also read it as "Maximum Density and the Big Bang". Some of you here have stated that there is no reason to believe there is a such thing as a max mass, but how about density? Surely you can't just keep on cramming stuff into a pea sized ball for all eternity can you? My logic says no, there must be a stopping point.

The amount of pressure it would take to get a pound of gold into a pea sized object must be enormous, well beyond anything we can do here on earth. That is a lot of pressure and friction, do black holes generate heat? if so is that heat able to escape its gravitational pull? or is heat not effected by gravity?


I ask such questions not to get the end all answer to the universe, just to better understand it and dismiss some of my own theories. They way I can explain the universe to myself is this:

A never ending cycle of expansion and contraction, gravity wins and density losses. In other words:

big bang --> expanding universe --> gravity takes hold --> collapsing universe --> density explosion = big bang and it all starts over again.

I am pretty sure some or most of you would get a nice chuckle out of that, but rather than laughing at me, can you help me understand why it would be wrong, because I know the chances of that being wrong are very high.

[arKane]

• Do black holes have this outward pressure?

The current standard BB theory says NO. Once the mass/density reach a point of collapsing into a black hole all the mass becomes a singularity which basically has no volume. The size of a BH is measured by the diameter of the event horizon which is the point at which the speed of light is the escape velocity. Any points closer to a BH's center of gravity and light can no longer escape.

The reality is we don't know what the mass in a BH really looks like or what laws of physics apply. We use the tool of math to help us as much as possible.


2. How is a super massive black hole born?

In the current standard BB theory, One speculation says after the BB when the first galaxies started forming, enough mass came together to collapse into a supermassive BH and then the accretion gas became a large star nursery the formed the galaxy. From that point on SMBH's only got larger by accretion of matter or through mergers with other galaxies. I believe the record size at the moment is about 18 billion solar masses. Currently there is no known size limit for a BH.


3. Is it possible that the big bang was nothing more than a really big super massive black hole that exploded rather than evaporating?

The current standard BB theory says NO. But by definition BH's are called singularities, and they all look a like to me. But consider this, in order for any BH or singularity to explode or expand, the mass would have to move outward at faster than light speed otherwise it would never escape from the gravity well. But they sort of get around that problem by saying that space can expand faster than light without violating the theory of relativity. So spacetime was created with the BB.

Anyway that's my understanding in a nutshell and I'm sure that could be cleaned up a bit by others that know more than I do. One point to remember is the current standard model of our universe is just that, a model. It's not the only model but the one with the largest consensus. That means it gets published in text books and all those science channel presentations stay within the guide lines of the standard model.

This post has been edited by arKane: 25 February 2012 - 05:31 PM

[belovelife]

well, i have a unique theory

in this atomic model



the idea of matter and gravity is actually powered by time

so as time flows, the energy of a primordial energy increases to produce a moment of matter/antimatter pairs

thus an atom

now in a black hole, the density of this energy is so high, not all of it actually does the impetali reaction

so at the core, pure energy with massive density, but no mass

at the outer shells, you get less and less dense matter as you get to the outside

so while this emits hydrogen mainly, all elements are released



similar to CME

a black hole could eject a star system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GX_339-4




conversely, a super-cluster size black hole, could have ejected all the black holes in the super cluster of galaxies



i also believe that the univese is infinate,

so similar to M-theory

so just as you look at the atomic model

Space

Time

Energy



these are the main elements of our univese

and this is how they react together

this would also allow for an expanding earth theory

-where

the initial cooling of the outer shell of the planet formed what we call pangea

-then

as the core "popcorned" or fission, if you prefer, occured, the matter occupying the core pushed outward and

caused the solid outer shell to move around while it floated on the molten inside of the planet



we see this also in the moon

where some of the pressure cracks appear to be from outward pressure



so just like the sun

a black hole is exerting outward pressure

but the gravity is super high in the black hole itself

so when a large enough reaction occurs, several chunks of energy are released

each large one with a core of non-impetali reaction, with outer shell of impetali

lots of hydrogen




so like a CME, a solar system is born





so a coronal mass ejection (solar)




and http://unknownskywal...most-parts-of-a

could look like Coronal mass ejection (quasar/blackhole)

This post has been edited by belovelife: 25 February 2012 - 06:45 PM

[jeremyb]

nice posts you two, very informative and fairly easy to understand, thanks for that.

There are a few theories out there such as the current BB theory that I am still on edges with.

The point of "collapsing into a black hole" means exactly what? the way I understand it is, that is the point where light can't escape? or does it actually collapse in on itself like some of the dieing stars?

I am also on the edges of the speed of light as being the maximum speed. If the law allows for space time to expand faster than the speed of light, it should in theory be allowed for a craft of some sort to not only ride this expansion, but accelerate with it eventually going faster than the expansion itself, thus going faster than the speed of light. kinda like a surfer riding the momentum of a wave, but then turns on a motor of some sort to go faster than the wave.

Singularities is another, I am not sure if I could ever understand how something with any amount of density can have no mass, it just does not make sense to me at this point. After all, if it has no mass, what is keeping it in the BH? Does gravity effect everything? or just things that have mass. I will think about these things more and post back at a later time/date.

[arKane]

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

nice posts you two, very informative and fairly easy to understand, thanks for that.

There are a few theories out there such as the current BB theory that I am still on edges with.

The point of "collapsing into a black hole" means exactly what? the way I understand it is, that is the point where light can't escape? or does it actually collapse in on itself like some of the dieing stars?

I think the best way to get a handle on this concept is to study what happens to matter when smaller stars die and don't have the mass required to form a BH. A white dwarf, also called a degenerate dwarf, is a small star composed mostly of electron-degenerate matter. They are very dense; a white dwarf's mass is comparable to that of the Sun and its volume is comparable to that of the Earth.

Degenerate matter is matter that has such extraordinarily high density that the dominant contribution to its pressure is attributable to the Pauli exclusion principle. The pressure maintained by a body of degenerate matter is called the degeneracy pressure, and arises because the Pauli principle prevents the constituent particles from occupying identical quantum states. Any attempt to force them close enough together that they are not clearly separated by position must place them in different energy levels. Therefore, reducing the volume requires forcing many of the particles into higher-energy quantum states. This requires additional compression force, and is made manifest as a resisting pressure. In electron-degenerate matter the atoms still have all their electrons but they are compressed very close to the nucleolus.

The next level of compressed matter is the neutron star. A neutron star is a type of stellar remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event. Such stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons, which are subatomic particles without electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons. Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.

Neutron degeneracy is analogous to electron degeneracy and is demonstrated in neutron stars, which are primarily supported by the pressure from a degenerate neutron gas. This happens when a stellar core above 1.44 solar masses, the Chandrasekhar limit, collapses and is not halted by the degenerate electrons. As the star collapses, the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favorable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons (via inverse beta decay, also termed "neutralization" and electron capture). The result of this collapse is an extremely compact star composed of nuclear matter, which is predominantly a degenerate neutron gas, sometimes called neutronium, with a small admixture of degenerate proton and electron gases.

When the mass rises high enough to overcome the pressure from the degenerate neutrons there is speculation of some additional degenerate steps before the BH forms but they have never been observed, so basically anything more massive than a neutron star will become a BH.

Quote

I am also on the edges of the speed of light as being the maximum speed. If the law allows for space time to expand faster than the speed of light, it should in theory be allowed for a craft of some sort to not only ride this expansion, but accelerate with it eventually going faster than the expansion itself, thus going faster than the speed of light. kinda like a surfer riding the momentum of a wave, but then turns on a motor of some sort to go faster than the wave.

This whole area space expanding faster than light is still in the realm of speculation IMO. But I'd like to believe it does offer hope of FTL travel by humans at some future date.

Quote

Singularities is another, I am not sure if I could ever understand how something with any amount of density can have no mass, it just does not make sense to me at this point. After all, if it has no mass, what is keeping it in the BH? Does gravity effect everything? or just things that have mass. I will think about these things more and post back at a later time/date.

Nothing was said about there being no mass. The concept of a singularity is that you can have all the mass in the universe concentrated in a point of space with no volume. I've heard it described as a point smaller than an atom. Seems impossible to me, but then what do I know. In any event more mass equals more gravity and as the gravity increases so does the diameter of the event horizon of the BH.

This post has been edited by arKane: 26 February 2012 - 12:22 AM

[belovelife]

belovelife, on 25 February 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

so a coronal mass ejection (solar)




and http://unknownskywal...most-parts-of-a

could look like Coronal mass ejection (quasar/blackhole)

this would also give reason to the disc shape of solar systems, (ours included)

where it starts the spin gravitationally


interesting article, also,

got me thinking on the subject

[CraigD]

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

The point of "collapsing into a black hole" means exactly what? the way I understand it is, that is the point where light can't escape? or does it actually collapse in on itself like some of the dieing stars?

What it means exactly – that is, mathematically – is that some collection of bodies with mass M becomes densely packed enough that it’s contained within a sphere of radius

where G is the gravitational constant and c the speed of light.

is called the Schwarzschild radius. The surface of the sphere given by it is called the event horizon.

It’s nearly as simple a formula as there can be – increase or decrease M, and increases or decreases proportionally. We only need the constant term to account for the units of length and mass we’re using – meters and kilograms, feet and pounds, etc – which weren’t invented to make calculating things having to do with gravity easy.

Quote

The way I understand it is, that is the point where light can't escape? or does it actually collapse in on itself like some of the dieing stars?

Both are correct. The physical points where light can’t escape from a collection of mass is the event horizon. The only real-universe physical process we know of that produces a long-lived black holes where before there was none is the collapse of a star – though the process isn’t usually something resembling crushing a can, but more a violent explosion, where lots of matter is blown out into space while that which ends up within the Schwarzschild radius sphere is blown inward.

In principle, a black hole could be formed more neatly, say, by tossing rocks into and increasingly large jumble/swarm in space until its Schwarzschild radius exceeds the size of the jumble – but no such thing is known to actually occur in nature.

[belovelife]

does that formula take into account specific atoms and molecules (sorry just asking)

for similar to asteroid gravitational fields?

as a gravitational constant

[CraigD]

belovelife, on 02 March 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

does that formula take into account specific atoms and molecules (sorry just asking)

No.

No gravitational interaction need take into account the kinds of atoms and molecules are in the bodies involved in the interaction, because these interactions depend only on mass. For example, a body made entirely of hydrogen has the same gravitational effect as one of equal mass made entirely of iron, or of fried chicken wings.

[maddog]

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

I seek some answers to the unknown (to me that is)
My questions:
1. Do black holes have this outward pressure?

Not in the way you think. It would have any kind of pressure that would be like the interior of stars.
By using the same concept for Black Holes that is use in stars would derive a value that is complex valued
in the interior of a Black Hole. This would be meaningless in current thinking in physics. Often it is
said that the Laws of Physics breaks down in the interior of a Black Hole.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

2. How is a super massive black hole born?

A supermassive Black Hole (often above a million solar masses) is what one expects now are at the center of galaxies.
Accretion is what is thought is the mechanism (think of a very large vacuum cleaner doing a lot of sucking).
Not all of the theory is worked out why galaxy formation just now seems to come with a Black Hole
eventually. At least not one I am aware of.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

3. Is it possible that the big bang was nothing more than a really big super massive black hole that exploded rather than evaporating?

Not actually - no matter how big a Black Hole get, it stays black. Now what you are describing though is the
time reverse case of a "White Hole". This is where matter is spewing out the mouth at an accelerating rate.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Some theories that I have seen say that the big bang from an object that was very very small, yet very very dense and contained all of the mass we currently have in the universe, I just do not buy that theory, at least not yet.

You are free to purchase what you wish. This has been the conventional wisdom since the theory began in
1931. There is a an interesting article in the current special edition of Scientific American, Vol 21, No. 1, pg 79,
called "The Myth of the Beginning of Time". Drawing from String Theory the author is considering a description
of what may be happening before the BB event. You can link to theSciAm website and look it up.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

In order for me to understand what the big bang, I try to understand what it was before it exploded. What would contain a universe's mass, and why? Currently we know that the greater the mass of an object, the more gravitational pull it has, size does not matter here. So when you read the topic title "Maximum Mass and the Big Bang" you could also read it as "Maximum Density and the Big Bang". Some of you here have stated that there is no reason to believe there is a such thing as a max mass, but how about density? Surely you can't just keep on cramming stuff into a pea sized ball for all eternity can you? My logic says no, there must be a stopping point.

This is one is simple. The upper limit to our space on density is a BH. More density than that (mass/unit space)
and you have one. The actual limit is defined by the Schwarchild Radius previously described by CraigD.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

The amount of pressure it would take to get a pound of gold into a pea sized object must be enormous, well beyond anything we can do here on earth. That is a lot of pressure and friction, do black holes generate heat? if so is that heat able to escape its gravitational pull? or is heat not effected by gravity?

Only on the outside is heat "generated" by converting the potential energy to kinetic by the sucking in
motion. This is in the form of intense radiation (X rays, etc). Heat is just radiation (Infrared) so is also
bound by it's speed limit. Once in the hole, it can't come out.

maddog

[maddog]

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

The point of "collapsing into a black hole" means exactly what? the way I understand it is, that is the point where light can't escape? or does it actually collapse in on itself like some of the dieing stars?

Yes, the dieing star is an excellent example. In order for a Black Hole to form though, a star needs at least 3.1 solar masses to form. Less
than that and the end product after all the fuel is gone is a Neutron Star. Which is a body about planet size or larger that is
completely composed of neutrons. The lower limit on this is about 2 solar masses (though this number may have been
recently revised). For example the end life for our sun is the third type of star death that is a White Dwarf.
It is not big enough to create enough gravitational energy in the final crunch to create either a Black Hole
or a Neutron Star.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

I am also on the edges of the speed of light as being the maximum speed. If the law allows for space time to expand faster than the speed of light, it should in theory be allowed for a craft of some sort to not only ride this expansion, but accelerate with it eventually going faster than the expansion itself, thus going faster than the speed of light. kinda like a surfer riding the momentum of a wave, but then turns on a motor of some sort to go faster than the wave.

All particles that contain mass (greater than 0) are bound by this speed limit. Light speed is the
speed limit. To go faster than that and the mass value turns imaginary {as in sqrt(-1)}. So this doesn't
make much sense.

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Singularities is another, I am not sure if I could ever understand how something with any amount of density can have no mass, it just does not make sense to me at this point. After all, if it has no mass, what is keeping it in the BH? Does gravity effect everything? or just things that have mass. I will think about these things more and post back at a later time/date.

It is the mass value that is creating a hole in the first place. For there to be "no mass" would the end of the
evaporation of a Black Hole whose mass has gone to zero. It just winks out of existence. After a rainstorm
all the rain evaporates, then it is all gone. So with a Black Hole.

maddog

This post has been edited by maddog: 08 March 2012 - 03:17 PM

[belovelife]

http://www.spacedail...g_Fuel_999.html



this article decribes a agn as i describe it, kindof anyway

[arKane]

belovelife, on 08 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

http://www.spacedail...g_Fuel_999.html

this article decribes a agn as i describe it, kindof anyway

I read the article and have to say I don't buy any of it. Supernovas add heavier elements to second and third generation star formation, which is necessary for the formation of rocky worlds where life has a chance to develop. Next when a super massive black hole becomes active and forms plasma jets from the poles, those jets only affect a small area of the galaxy. So the characterization of spraying the galaxy like a leaf blower is just ludicrous. They need to come up with a better theory.

[7DSUSYstrings]

jeremyb, on 25 February 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

I seek some answers to the unknown (to me that is)



My questions:

• Do black holes have this outward pressure?
  
• How is a super massive black hole born?
  
• Is it possible that the big bang was nothing more than a really big super massive black hole that exploded rather than evaporating?

Some theories that I have seen say that the big bang from an object that was very very small, yet very very dense and contained all of the mass we currently have in the universe, I just do not buy that theory, at least not yet.

In order for me to understand what the big bang, I try to understand what it was before it exploded. What would contain a universe's mass, and why? Currently we know that the greater the mass of an object, the more gravitational pull it has, size does not matter here. So when you read the topic title "Maximum Mass and the Big Bang" you could also read it as "Maximum Density and the Big Bang". Some of you here have stated that there is no reason to believe there is a such thing as a max mass, but how about density? Surely you can't just keep on cramming stuff into a pea sized ball for all eternity can you? My logic says no, there must be a stopping point.

The amount of pressure it would take to get a pound of gold into a pea sized object must be enormous, well beyond anything we can do here on earth. That is a lot of pressure and friction, do black holes generate heat? if so is that heat able to escape its gravitational pull? or is heat not effected by gravity?


I ask such questions not to get the end all answer to the universe, just to better understand it and dismiss some of my own theories. They way I can explain the universe to myself is this:

A never ending cycle of expansion and contraction, gravity wins and density losses. In other words:

big bang --> expanding universe --> gravity takes hold --> collapsing universe --> density explosion = big bang and it all starts over again.

I am pretty sure some or most of you would get a nice chuckle out of that, but rather than laughing at me, can you help me understand why it would be wrong, because I know the chances of that being wrong are very high.

No laughter from here, although a to say that this isn't as bizarre as it may seem. It's tougher to discuss all this because there is barely anything in mainstream scientific literature that ignores the speculation of the BB or even acknowledges it to be speculation. So we tread on eggshells here with these type of ideas.

It agrees with thermodynamics, specifically entropy, that any universe teeming with life would not develop from a single instance of expansion. We can visual the process as such (a single iteration) by imagining the formation of water in a vacuum at absolute zero. It would have to form through quantum scale bonding, but as soon as the bond was created, it would need to stop the process and would result in a frozen superatom, not a molecule. Eventually the superatom would evaporate.

A "breathing" universe would, as you depict, expand, contract, expand, contract and so on. The contraction phase, nonetheless, would result in a compacted, super-superatom, like data on a hard drive is saved to a sector. It might be recalled later and that type of a process would serve traveling through time into the past.