Are Black Holes Hollow?

[litespeed]

Moderation note: this thread was moved from Questions and Answers forum because it is more of a discussion of astrophysics than a simple question.

 

Sirs:

 

I am not convinced black holes include a singularity. By way of topic introduction, one TV reader said we would be 'spaghettified' falling into a BH. However, we would really be pancaked; doesn't this always happen when you go fast enough?

 

Anyway, as we fall into the BH we would notice the Plank distance did not changed at all. Further, the light from our small LED flashlights would procede ahead of us at, you quessed it, the speed of light. Our base team on the outside would notice we BH travelors would have become microscopically thin and our time come to a virtual halt.

 

Seems to me all matter fallen into a BH has been conserved, and is accumulating at a distance more then one Plank distance from the center.

[Tormod]

We do have a lot of discussions on what black holes are, here is one of them:

 

 

The standard theory does imply that you get "spaghettified" but the explanation is slightly complex.

 

What happens if you fall into a black hole? - By Noreen Malone - Slate Magazine has a simple answer ("You die.").

 

But forgive me for asking: How does your question title relate to the text you wrote above?

[litespeed]

T:

 

If everything that falls into a BH comes to a screaching time stop approaching the center, then the center is empty. Hollow...

[Moontanman]

I've read differing explanations of what is inside a black hole but none of them would account for a hollow back hole. If indeed the substance of a black hole contracts forever there is still something at the center so it is not hollow. some theories say the contraction stops at the event horizon so the entire black hole is solid. some say there is a limit beyond which even gravity can compress matter and this super compressed matter is at the center of a black hole, bigger than the ever contracting center previously mentioned but still smaller than the event horizon. So there may or may not be empty space between the event horizon and the center but there is something at the center so black holes are not hollow. Personally i like the idea that there is nothing beyond the event horizon, not a void, not empty space just nothing. Like the old asteroid video game in reverse. If there was something that could ignore the black hole it would exit one side of the black hole as it went into the opposite side. Just my silly take on it.

[litespeed]

TORMOD?

 

I don't understand the posting mechanics of this site. For instance, I click on recent posts, which is good, but none of my own are listed. How is this possible?

[litespeed]

Moontanman - You wrote: ".... some theories say the contraction stops at the event horizon so the entire black hole is solid."

 

Think of this. The center of gravity of a massive collapsing star is greater then a cubic Plank distance. Nothing HAS to be there. Instead, everything is rushing towards that place but can't reach it because time comes to a virtual stop. Subsequently, the event horizon expands outwards as more mass is added.

 

Just a thought.

[litespeed]

More Rambling

 

Matter speeding towards the final qubic plank would need to come to a very sudden stop upon entering the area. A nifty singularity might seem a good solution, but it is not. This is because Black Holes grow, as do their event horizons. A singularity seems obligated to gobble up all of it, but does not.

 

The more elegant solution to this problem is TIME comes to a very sudden strop PRIOR to matter passing the final plank unit. Hence, the BH would be hollow?

[Guest Phoenix_Enflame]

I was under the impression that once you passed the event horizon boundary that the BH's sheer force of the gravitational pull was stronger/faster than the speed of light. So, you could not follow the lights.

[sanctus]

Litespeed, time does not stop, it stops in relation to something. I remeber the example we calculated in our GR course: if you are falling into a a black hole it will take you a few [imath]\mu s[/imath] to pass the event horizon, but to an observer who is far enough you never reach the event horizon (you disappear anyway, because you are always more and more redshifted).

 

Or maybe you know all this and I did not understand you :)

[litespeed]

Sanctus - You wrote: "...Litespeed, time does not stop, it stops in relation to something..."

 

Yes that is true. The person entering the BH does not notice the universe has aged billions of years as he continues his very very slow journy [as we would see it if we could].

 

A simpler analogy would be this. A space travelor with plenty of anti-mater fuel leaves the Bern clock tower for one year at a constant G force then does the same in reverse. He will have transported himself significantly forward in time more then two years, RELATIVE to those who did not experience such G forces.

 

Incidentally, this is one way to time travel. A sort of suspended animation. I do not believe anyone has come up with negative analogy for traveling back in time...

[litespeed]

Phoenix - You wrote: "... the BH's sheer force of the gravitational pull was stronger/faster than the speed of light..."

 

My posts are hardly authoritative on anything being solely based on a layman's long interest in the subject. A dilitant, if you will. As such I will offer a few feeble thoughts.

 

1) Gravity is not a force. Instead, it is what we call the observed behaviour of mass interacting with space/time bent by both itself and other objects with mass.

 

2) If this is true, a BH is simply an extreme example of bent space/time. Accordingly, I see no reason mass or electomagnetic particlles/waves find the laws of physics changed in any way. Specifically, the laws of relativity would remain intact, IMHO.

 

3) Evidence for this includes the conservation of mass [i think] that enters the BH, and the fact the event horizon expands accordingly. As for light? It simply follows the curve of space time as it normally would.

 

A good question is whether there is conservation of energy absorbed in a BH? Do the photons simply accumulate in a sort of suspended animation as do theoretical BH travelors?

 

Musings. Just musings for discussion purposes.....

[litespeed]

Another Thoght

 

I have never seen any discussion of whether the mass of objects entering a black hole gain mass as they accelerate. If conservation of mass in a BH is true, is that further evidence gravity is not a force? By contrast, I believe particle accelerators increase mass of accelerated particles, presumably at the expense of the energy used to do the accelerating.

[Tormod]

TORMOD?

 

I don't understand the posting mechanics of this site. For instance, I click on recent posts, which is good, but none of my own are listed. How is this possible?

 

This seems to be an issue with this Q&A forum only. I'm looking into it. :)

[Guest Phoenix_Enflame]

Another Thoght

 

I have never seen any discussion of whether the mass of objects entering a black hole gain mass as they accelerate. If conservation of mass in a BH is true, is that further evidence gravity is not a force? By contrast, I believe particle accelerators increase mass of accelerated particles, presumably at the expense of the energy used to do the accelerating.

 

I am curious about why you "beleive particle accelerators increase mass of accelerated particles at the expense of the energy used to do the accelerating". Is it because the particles are being pulled through the acceleration process instead of being pushed?

[Guest Phoenix_Enflame]

Phoenix - You wrote: "... the BH's sheer force of the gravitational pull was stronger/faster than the speed of light..."

 

My posts are hardly authoritative on anything being solely based on a layman's long interest in the subject. A dilitant, if you will. As such I will offer a few feeble thoughts.

 

1) Gravity is not a force. Instead, it is what we call the observed behaviour of mass interacting with space/time bent by both itself and other objects with mass.

 

2) If this is true, a BH is simply an extreme example of bent space/time. Accordingly, I see no reason mass or electomagnetic particlles/waves find the laws of physics changed in any way. Specifically, the laws of relativity would remain intact, IMHO.

 

3) Evidence for this includes the conservation of mass [i think] that enters the BH, and the fact the event horizon expands accordingly. As for light? It simply follows the curve of space time as it normally would.

 

A good question is whether there is conservation of energy absorbed in a BH? Do the photons simply accumulate in a sort of suspended animation as do theoretical BH travelors?

 

Musings. Just musings for discussion purposes.....

 

 

Well, you are correct. The word "force" was an ill chosen word. I believe I saw a model of "mass interacting with space/time bent by both itself and other objects with mass" somewhere that helped me understand it better at the time, but I had forgotten.

I am no authority, it is just an interest. I am very curious and it's very helpful when people such as yourself will take the time to help understand it better. Thank you.

 

As for your question of "conservation of energy absorbed in a BH", that is interesting. Now I have to go look it up. Let me know if you find an answer.

And thank you reminding

[litespeed]

Hi Phoenix, Re push/pull

 

My guess is particles are both pushed and pulled as they pass through the acceleration tube. Sort of like an ordinary electric motor. The reason I used the word 'believe' is I have not gotten a response yet from the Fermilab forum. I simply asked if mass is created during the acceleration prossess.

 

I assume it is because people are always discussing the mass of these particles in mega and giga volts, and those seem to be associated SI units of mass. Could be wrong. However, these particles are accelerated to very near the speed of light. Well in excess of 99.999 percent. And yet they are in no way near infinite mass that would be required if they actually attained the speed of light.

 

I would really really like to see a graph plotting the mass change from motionless to the speed of light itself using one gram of matter to start. Given the very high speeds attained in a 'simple' particle accelerator, it seems to me space travel at very high speeds might not require the amount of energy I once suspected.

 

 

I am curious about why you "beleive particle accelerators increase mass of accelerated particles at the expense of the energy used to do the accelerating". Is it because the particles are being pulled through the acceleration process instead of being pushed?

[litespeed]

Phoenix - PS

 

Thanks for the compliment, but any understanding I might have to impart to others is simply a matter of a willingness to display absolute ignorance in enough quantity to alow others to find the chestnuts, and then tell me!