What Is Inside A Black Hole

[Moontanman]

Moontanman "I've given several links to what happens inside a black hole...."

 

No, you've given several links to what a few people think might be happening, what they theorize might be happening or what they imagine might be happening. Nowhere in any of the links does anyone say "This is what's happening inside a black hole and here's evidence from our research to show that." No one can know what's going on beyond the event horizon or whether any predictive calculations we make based on the laws of Physics we're familiar with here outside of it would even apply there....

 

The first link you provided, "Could Life Survive In A Black Hole?" is sufficiently dismantled by Australian Astronomer Dr. David Floyd, who says that even if the theory is correct, it would be impossible to know what is occurring beyond the event horizon of a black hole. "At this point - and perhaps forever - we're restricted to making untestable assertions," says Floyd. "Given the number of black holes in the universe - lots - one might infer that life is inevitable inside at least one of them if there really are stable orbits," he says. "Maybe there are entire universes inside black holes."

 

The second link you provided, "Are We Living Inside A Black Hole?" is just another obviously unprovable theory which, even if it were true and could be proven, would mean that we don't know what's going on outside the black hole our universe is in, an even more uncomfortable position than simply not knowing what's going on inside the black holes in our own universe. Also, if our universe really was within a black hole, it would mean that there can be many black holes within black holes since, as we have observed, there are many black holes within our universe.

 

The third link you provided, "What would you see from inside a black hole?" is nothing more than a flight of fancy, imagining what it might be like if one could look around at things from within a black hole, what it might feel like, etc. No substantial or compelling evidence of any kind, not even a theory there.

 

Conclusion.... the links you provided don't show anything about what happens inside a black hole.

 

Moontanman "....can you give any evidence that a small plastic replica of Richard Nixon is at the center of a black hole?"

 

No, I can't, which is the whole point, no one can give any evidence about anything going on beyond the event horizon.... and that's why something as ridiculous as a Nixonian theory of black holes is just as valid as any other.... and probably always will be.

 

I disagree, there are many places that we will never be able to measure directly, from the core of the earth to the center of the sun, to say we cannot intelligently speculate on the aspects of places we cannot directly measure is a bit less than honest wouldn't you say? Trying to assert hat a plastic Nixon is at the center of a black hole is nothing less than ludacris, using math to speculate about what could be there is less so.

 

You very much remind me of a creationist who when told the earth is 4.5 billion years old answers, "where you there, did you see it? If not then you can't be sure what happened" An argument from incredulity is less than optimal...

[maddog]

Entertaining theories that can never be proven one way or the other is a complete waste of time.... Wouldn't you agree?

I am not sure with which physics now or some time in the future? See, what may appear silly now to even consider might seem trivial in a couple of hundred years. So if the theory is internally consistent even though can not be disproved, may hold some value it in thinking this way does lead to a deeper understanding and even an eventual corroboration.

 

At the time Quantum Mechanics was formulating in the 1920's, the majority of scientists were thinking just like you have spoken. Were these adventurous scientist who boldly pressed on wrong to investigate when not a lot of data was coalescing into a rigid theory?

 

Your probably referring to the fact string theory can not be proved because the scale at which it functions is too small. Yet there are experiments going on today in laboratories around the country, though not taking the conventional route are able to test (one way or another) some models proposed. In the future (once Quantum Gravity [QG] is as known about as is QM is today), we may be able to model what goes on inside a black (even without being there) based on what we see outside. This Holographic Principle where the information about a system in 4-space (spacetime) can be modeled in one less dimension (same method of how jpeg compression works). It has been accepted that matter falling in gives it's information up to the event horizon, such that we could know all the info about what fell in by getting that info on the surface (in theory).

 

maddog

[maddog]

I am currently reading a book by Lisa Randall, "Warped Passages" from 2006. In Ch 22 she mention based on this representation of gravity using only one 5-brane manifold and allowing gravity to extend to infinity in the fifth dimension could solve a number of problems with other models beyond the Standard Model. What is interesting because gravity extends beyond our 4-dimensional spacetime (I call it "leaks"), that Black Holes could be 5-dimensional objects (maybe both). This extra dimension can give the BH Wormhole like properties. Can this be proven ? Not yet. Of course neither could it be proven that men could fly, until they did.... Da Vinci had drawings and model. That was all. This all that Randall is suggesting. One possibility that might work until it is shown otherwise. This is all Physicists do, try a theory. See if an experimentalist can show it to be true or false. Ad Infinitum.

 

maddog

[CraigD]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423608/planets-could-orbit-singularities-inside-black/

Dokuchaev’s paper Is there life inside black holes?, the same one mentioned in this MIT technologyreview article, came up back in January, in Can Black Holes Collide. It’s pretty cool, though too technical for me to understand in detail.

 

On an intuitive level, I find it illustrative to consider that, by best estimates, one can reasonably argue that our universe is inside a black hole. A common estimate of its radius is 4.3 x 10²⁶ m, which would be inside a non-rotating electrically neutral black hole of mass 2.9 x 10⁵³ kg. Common estimate of its mass are as high as about 3.1 x 10⁵⁴ kg.

 

Sources: wikipedia article Observable universe, Schwarzschild radius

 

How can we have any idea of what happens inside

when we can't see beyond the event horizon ...

The short, obvious answer is that, while nobody outside it can see within a black hole via any kind of radiation, one can measure the force of gravity from bodies within it. So, some black hole has enough of its mass arranged in interesting ways such as Dokucheav calculates, this arrangement can in principle be measured in much the way we measure variations in the Earth’s density.

 

No present day technology can measure it at the many light-year distances of the closest black holes, but if a future technology allows instruments to be flown close to black holes, they should be able to get information about their interior – limited information, but interesting information that could test hypotheses like Dokucheav’s.

[Lancewen]

We have some idea of what happens inside, but not enough to unify geometric to quantum physics.

 

Having said that, compact objects outside time-space are only in the primordial past and now we see only shadows of what was.

 

All that matters is back in another form to our galaxies. It has not gone as many speculate.

 

What we have is math based on there being a singularity. I don't believe in singularities in nature. That means the math of singularities is not valid as a means of describing what's really going on inside a BH. I don't need to be a mathematician to say that. What I do believe about compressed matter, I have no way to prove once it's compression takes it behind an event horizon. But based on what happens to matter this side of the event horizon, each compression phase of matter compresses a different level of the atom. White dwarf matter compresses the electron shell of each atom very close to the nucleus. The next phase is the neutron star, where electrons combine with the protons making them into neutrons. The next phase of compression has to be the neutrons degenerating into quarks. But who can say what phases of compression exist on the other side of the event horizon. Everything I've read about BH's treats all BH's no matter what size they are as having the same level of compression. I don't believe this is the case. I think the matter keeps compressing in phases as the gravity increases. So a supermassive BH is more compressed than a new stellar sized BH.

[maddog]

What we have is math based on there being a singularity. I don't believe in singularities in nature. That means the math of singularities is not valid as a means of describing what's really going on inside a BH. I don't need to be a mathematician to say that. What I do believe about compressed matter, I have no way to prove once it's compression takes it behind an event horizon.

The term "singularity" actually comes from mathematics. It refers to the point where the value of a function at specific point is undefined or asymptotic (like divide by 0). In Complex Analysis one can handle even asymptotic singularities. Beyond that it get too much into the math which I need not bother with. In physics, Black Holes in particular,, this function is the density distribution wrt to radius of the Black Hole. At the center of the hole this function (density) is not well defined (infinite). Of course these equations were analyzed classically without quantum effects. These are also a model of what would happen near the center and not what is necessarily really going because as everyone has said is behind the Event Horizon (EH). You can still model the behavior by assuming Black Holes behave in a classical manor. This is the rub actually, because infinite density is NOT a classical find!

 

... But based on what happens to matter this side of the event horizon, each compression phase of matter compresses a different level of the atom. White dwarf matter compresses the electron shell of each atom very close to the nucleus. The next phase is the neutron star, where electrons combine with the protons making them into neutrons. The next phase of compression has to be the neutrons degenerating into quarks. But who can say what phases of compression exist on the other side of the event horizon. Everything I've read about BH's treats all BH's no matter what size they are as having the same level of compression. I don't believe this is the case. I think the matter keeps compressing in phases as the gravity increases. So a supermassive BH is more compressed than a new stellar sized BH.

Last I heard the end result becoming Black Holes over Neutron star is about 3.1 solar masses. This may have been superseded with better model (c. 1980). It would still be about this number. I also do remember an article awhile ago about a find of a "quark star" or a star that would be composed of free quarks and gluons of all types. I do not know if this was verified or shot down or what. So maybe if you want to know more, you Google it. B)

 

maddog

[maddog]

Dokuchaev’s paper Is there life inside black holes?, the same one mentioned in this MIT technologyreview article, came up back in January, in Can Black Holes Collide. It’s pretty cool, though too technical for me to understand in detail.

I went looking for that article and didn't find it. I even searched on arXiv archives and didn't find either. If you or anyone has suggestions I would appreciate it. I am courageous enough to go over the math as needed. My curiosity on what has been considered overrides any consideration of my math skills. Tensors are the bane of my existence as I get the subscripts mixed up with superscripts. General Relativity and Black Hole models are riddled with them. So be it. Let me know.

 

maddog

Edited August 23, 2012 by maddog

[Lancewen]

Last I heard the end result becoming Black Holes over Neutron star is about 3.1 solar masses. This may have been superseded with better model (c. 1980). It would still be about this number. I also do remember an article awhile ago about a find of a "quark star" or a star that would be composed of free quarks and gluons of all types. I do not know if this was verified or shot down or what. So maybe if you want to know more, you Google it. B)

 

maddog

 

It seems there might be quark stars or

 

Cubic neutrons might find it hip to be square

Neutrons and protons may appear quite spherical here on Earth, but two physicists in Spain and Germany have suggested that, if squeezed under enough pressure, these subatomic particles might squish themselves into cubic shapes. Although no evidence for such cubic neutrons has yet been obtained, an unprecedentedly heavy neutron star that was discovered last year could potentially house these unusually shaped particles. The star in question, which inspired the study, is a rotating neutron star – or "pulsar" – with a mass twice that of our Sun.

 

Neutron stars are created when a star explodes in a violent supernova, shedding most of its matter and forcing the remaining 80–90% of the star's mass to collapse in on itself. If that remaining star is more than 2.5 times the Sun's mass, then it can collapse completely, forming a black hole. But lighter stars instead stabilize, crushing 1.3–2 times the mass of the Sun into a city-sized sphere with a radius of just 11–12 km. These stars are so dense that gravitational pressure forces the electrons in atoms to merge with protons – forming neutrons. The inside of the star ends up being composed almost entirely of neutrons, hence the name "neutron star".

 

However, Felipe Llanes-Estrada, who is on leave at the Technical University of Munich, and Gaspar Moreno Navarro of the Complutense University of Madrid say that if the interior pressures are high enough, the neutrons could be squeezed into cubes. They could then pack more tightly, further reducing their total volume by about 24%. "It's like stacking oranges in a supermarket – the oranges at the bottom of the stack are a little distorted because of the weight of the ones on top," says Llanes-Estrada.

 

 

http://physicsworld....ip-to-be-square

 

 

 

 

 

Observed overdense neutron stars

Statistically, the probability of a neutron star being a quark star is low, so in the Milky Way Galaxy there will only be a small population of quark stars (but, if it is correct that overdense neutron stars turn into quark stars, that makes the possible number of quark stars higher than was originally thought, as we would be looking for the wrong type of star). Quark stars and strange stars are entirely hypothetical as of 2011, but observations released by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory on April 10, 2002 detected two candidates, designated RX J1856.5-3754 and 3C58, which had previously been thought to be neutron stars. Based on the known laws of physics, the former appeared much smaller and the latter much colder than it should be, suggesting that they are composed of material denser than neutron-degenerate matter. However, these observations are met with skepticism by researchers who say the results were not conclusive;^[6] and since the late 2000s, the possibility that RX J1856 is a quark star has been excluded (see RX J1856.5-3754).

 

Another star, XTE J1739-285^[7], has been observed by a team led by Philip Kaaret of the University of Iowa and reported as a possible candidate.

 

It remains to be seen how the question of quark star or strange star existence will play out.

 

It was reported in 2008 that observations of supernovae SN2006gy, SN2005gj and SN2005ap also suggest the existence of quark stars.^[8] It has been suggested that the collapsed core of supernova SN1987A may be a quark star.^[9][10]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star}

 

 

Either way it seems like the event horizon is not very far away.

Edited August 23, 2012 by arKane

[belovelife]

if you look at black holes,

 

we have so many things going on,

 

the main proble is that we are kinda looking at a really slow moving picture

and we really only have a few decent frames of which to draw conclutions

 

i have seen all sorts of stuff on black holes

 

m-theory, etc.

 

cool visualizations that define a cold gass that gathers and then creates a swirl that we see

 

now, as far as things go

 

its not a very relative relationship

 

if we look at a galxy like a quasar instead of a black hole, then i think the picture clears up quite a bit

 

we have gone through this before of course, but i will state my point again

 

if the center of a galaxy is an active galactic nuclei

 

then the activity going on would be similar to a coronal mass ejection from a star

 

eccept it would be a coronal mass ejection from a AGN

 

furthermore, it wouls create alot of hydrogen

 

now, if there were active regions of a AGN, then these places would have more CME's than other spots, which

 

in a spinning galaxy, would look like a pinwheel, or another way to say it, at the point there there is an

AGN CME, you would have a seriers of "arms" that spiral to the outer regions of the galaxy

 

where the major star "ignighting" would be in the center of the galaxy

 

in a AGN CME you would have the beginning of a solar system, where the gravity of the AGN

 

and the orbit of the CME, create a spinning solar system

[maddog]

It seems there might be quark stars ...

It does seem like the "quark star" as a concept has stuck around. Wow! I'm not if the upper limit of 3.1 SM has moved (let's just use it roughly for now). So the lower limit on mass between the conventional Neutron star and these "oddballs" that either shine weird or appear to have the wrong temperature must be between 2 and 3 solar masses (SM), right?

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

Then of course there are Preon Stars...

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/08/preons-splitting-the-quark-because-subatomic-physics-wasnt-complicated-enough.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "I disagree, there are many places that we will never be able to measure directly, from the core of the earth to the center of the sun, to say we cannot intelligently speculate on the aspects of places we cannot directly measure is a bit less than honest wouldn't you say?"

 

Not less than honest.... but an apples and oranges comparison like the one you're making above may be. I didn't say one can't intelligently speculate on aspects of places that one can't directly measure. What I'm saying is I don't think anyone (I don't care who it is) can intelligently speculate on absolutley imperceptible internal aspects of invisible places that are many light years away based on mathematical formulas and physical laws no one can even be sure apply within the environment under consideration.

 

Moontanman "Trying to assert that a plastic Nixon is at the center of a black hole is nothing less than ludacris, using math to speculate about what could be there is less so."

 

Read it again.... I didn't try to seriously assert anything. What I did was use an obviously ridiculous example to illustrate the absurdity of endless speculation based on mathematical formulas and laws that are suspect at best when it comes to describing the internal nature of something that's impossible to know, such as what (if anything) really happens inside a black hole. Continuing to advance untestable theories and make untestable assertions about something one knows will very likely always remain a mystery seems like an enormous waste of time. So I'll say it again.... no one can give any evidence about anything going on beyond the event horizon.... and that's why something as ridiculous as a Nixonian theory of black holes is just as valid as any other.... and probably always will be.

 

Moontanman "You very much remind me of a creationist who when told the earth is 4.5 billion years old answers, "where you there, did you see it? If not then you can't be sure what happened" An argument from incredulity is less than optimal..."

 

Oh yeah? Well, so far you very much remind me of someone who's insisting that it makes perfect sense to continue trying to guage the depth of a submarine by waving around a barometer from atop Mount Everest! The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period. This is irrefutable. If however people want to continue speculating wildly on the nature of something that absolutely cannot be known, inferring that there are stable permitted planetary orbits, whole universes with intelligent life swirling around, or even tiny plastic replicas of Richard Nixon spinning around inside black holes that's fine, but why dress up as science what can just as easily be described as fantasy with elaborate formulas and physical laws that more likely than not have no meaning beyond the event horizon?

 

CraigD "On an intuitive level, I find it illustrative to consider that, by best estimates, one can reasonably argue that our universe is inside a black hole."

 

As you once questioned my intuitive abilities, I now question yours. Best estimates? How exactly can there be any "best estimates" of an absolutely unknowable environment many light years away? What could any such estimates possibly be based on if absolutely nothing is known of any internal aspect of a black hole? It's simply not logical that any well reasoned argument of any kind could arise favoring one scenario or another playing out within a black hole, let alone the idea that the entire observable Universe is inside one, when the fact that nothing can ever be known about it or proven one way or the other is considered.... that's a perfect example of an exercise in futility.

 

CraigD "....while nobody outside it can see within a black hole via any kind of radiation, one can measure the force of gravity from bodies within it."

 

It hasn't been shown that any gravitational force from bodies within a black hole (if there are any) can be measured. Since it's as likely as not that the laws of Physics as we know them here outside break down somewhere beyond the event horizon, there simply wouldn't be any way to reliably interpret any data accumulated from outside the black hole using those laws no matter how close one was. Any number of theories might attempt to explain an anomolous gravitational force seemingly detected from some point beyond the event horizon within the black hole, but as Dr. David Floyd pointed out, even if they (the theories) were correct none of them could ever be proven one way or the other, so one could never really assert with any degree of confidence the true significance of any gravitational force detected or even whether or not it really was anomolous.

 

CraigD "So, some black hole has enough of its mass arranged in interesting ways such as Dokucheav calculates, this arrangement can in principle be measured in much the way we measure variations in the Earth’s density."

 

More apples and oranges. For that idea to be workable, again, one would have to assume that the same mathematical formulas and laws that work well for us here on Earth (and in space generally) can be applied successfully to reveal internal aspects or events transpiring within the extreme environment of a black hole.... pretty thin.

 

 

CraigD "No present day technology can measure it at the many light-year distances of the closest black holes, but if a future technology allows instruments to be flown close to black holes, they should be able to get information about their interior – limited information, but interesting information that could test hypotheses like Dokucheav’s."

 

Unless or until some way of observing the interior of a black hole beyond the event horizon is devised it won't matter how close to it instruments are flown, any more than flying low over a locked bank vault and looking at it through a pair of binoculars will help one see more clearly what (if anything) is inside.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period. This is irrefutable.

 

That's quite an assertion, if you have bothered to read the rules here then you know what you have to do... if not I'll tell you, to make such a positive assertion means you have to show some support for it. While I happen to think you are quite possibly correct I do not think you can support this statement with anything other than that same sort of speculation that is used to suggest what does go on inside a black hole... B)

Edited September 7, 2012 by Moontanman

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't think that much happens inside a black hole. I don't think that it is anything special. Just a lot of spinning breaking stuff down, but also throwing stuff together until stuff flies back out at high speed. I think that most black hole speculation is sci-fi. In fact I think that there is a black hole in the sun, and a black hole in the Earth. Their power is exaggerated. I mean that there is something not right with the maths. The sun's not black, it's white, and yet it is created by a black hole, it dies into a black hole, and I think that it also stays as a black hole in between. Sort of blocked up somehow, like a blocked up plughole.

 

The reason I think this is to do with gravity. There is new speculation about Dark Matter using negative mass as a flow force. I use it for gravity in my model. I can have a black hole in the sun as my hot, dense gas in the plasmic state, because the two would be very similar in a combined state of mass, and negative mass.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Moontanman]

I don't think that much happens inside a black hole. I don't think that it is anything special. Just a lot of spinning breaking stuff down, but also throwing stuff together until stuff flies back out at high speed. I think that most black hole speculation is sci-fi. In fact I think that there is a black hole in the sun, and a black hole in the Earth. Their power is exaggerated.

 

Seriously? I suggest you do a little bit of reading up on black holes, and these two assertions need to be backed up, in fact i think i like Aemilius' assertion a lot better, at least a plastic Nixon at the center of a black hole needn't violate the laws of physics... Seriously Pincho Paxton you cannot make up your own laws of physics and then assert them as relevant...

[Lancewen]

 

Aemilius

While we can't know a great deal about what happens on the other side of an event horizon. We do have a very good idea what's happening to mass as it gets increasingly compressed. When mass gets compressed to a point beyond the event horizon, I can reasonably assume the mass has just continued it's normal progression of compression whatever that might be. Which leads me to believe the more we know about the very small (smaller than subatomic) the closer we will be to knowing more about BH's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Seriously? I suggest you do a little bit of reading up on black holes, and these two assertions need to be backed up, in fact i think i like Aemilius' assertion a lot better, at least a plastic Nixon at the center of a black hole needn't violate the laws of physics... Seriously Pincho Paxton you cannot make up your own laws of physics and then assert them as relevant...

 

Well, I am good at realising physics. But it doesn't matter, I will ignore the thread.