What Is Inside A Black Hole

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "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."

 

Perhaps you should have considered that rule more carefully before you characterized what you wrote earlier as evidence.... "I've given several links to what happens inside a black hole...." As I pointed out, the links you provided contained no evidence whatsoever concerning what happens inside black holes, nothing that backed up your own "positive assertion". So set a good example Moontanman.... after you've provided what you consider to be genuinely credible supporting evidence that what goes on inside a black hole can be known, I'll happily tear it to shreds with verifiable information that contradicts your obviously laughable contention.

 

Moontanman "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...

 

Like I said, first make clear the basis for your own positive assertion as to precisely how and by what means the internal aspects of any black hole can be known, then I'll respond.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

Moontanman "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."

 

Perhaps you should have considered that rule more carefully before you characterized what you wrote earlier as evidence.... "I've given several links to what happens inside a black hole...." As I pointed out, the links you provided contained no evidence whatsoever concerning what happens inside black holes, nothing that backed up your own "positive assertion". So set a good example Moontanman.... and after you've provided what you consider to be credible supporting evidence that what goes on inside a black hole can be known, I'll happily tear it to shreds with verifiable information that contradicts your obviously laughable contention.

 

Moontanman "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...

 

Like I said, first make clear the basis for your own positive assertion as to precisely how and by what means the internal aspects of any black hole can be known, then I'll respond.

 

 

I see, you are correct I did indeed say that I had provided links to what happens inside a black hole, i should have said links to what other people have proposed might happen inside black holes, I withdraw that statement, I apologize, I was indeed wrong to say those links were to things that did happen inside a black hole.

 

On the other hand you did indeed assert that it was not possible to ever know what happens inside black holes... I suggest you support that statement or withdraw it...

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "On the other hand you did indeed assert that it was not possible to ever know what happens inside black holes... I suggest you support that statement or withdraw it..."

 

I think there's plenty of support for that statement, I won't withdraw it.... The only seemingly reliable information available about black holes has to do with location, information which can be gathered by observing the effect a black hole has on matter and radiation in the vicinity, and the mass of a black hole can apparently be calculated by the effect it has on an orbiting star of known mass (open to correction). None of that can be used to aid speculation on what's actually happening beyond the event horizon though. It's well known now that extreme gravitational forces prevent any radiation or matter (a.k.a. information) from escaping a black hole once the event horizon has been crossed. With no information gathering capability available, it logically follows that no reliable determination(s) can be made or fact based conclusion(s) arrived at describing the prevailing condition(s) within a black hole beyond the event horizon. To make matters worse, we can't even be sure that the Laws of Physics as we've come to know them apply within that environment. In other words, nothing can ever be known of what actually happens (if anything) inside a black hole because there's simply no information to work with that would enable one to make any reliable determination(s) or formulate any fact based conclusion(s). As Astronomer Dr. David Floyd pointed out.... "At this point - and perhaps forever - we're restricted to making untestable assertions...." So, Moontanman, pending the advent of some future technology that allows us to penetrate the impenetrable, represented by the event horizon, and reach the unreachable, represented by the fantastic distances involved (around one quadrillion miles to the nearest black hole, and possibly much further), my opinion is that the statement I made earlier "The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period. This is irrefutable." is relatively accurate.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

Moontanman "On the other hand you did indeed assert that it was not possible to ever know what happens inside black holes... I suggest you support that statement or withdraw it..."

 

I think there's plenty of support for that statement, I won't withdraw it.... The only seemingly reliable information available about black holes has to do with location, information which can be gathered by observing the effect a black hole has on matter and radiation in the vicinity, and the mass of a black hole can apparently be calculated by the effect it has on an orbiting star of known mass (open to correction). None of that can be used to aid speculation on what's actually happening beyond the event horizon though. It's well known now that extreme gravitational forces prevent any radiation or matter (a.k.a. information) from escaping a black hole once the event horizon has been crossed. With no information gathering capability available, it logically follows that no reliable determination(s) can be made or fact based conclusion(s) arrived at describing the prevailing condition(s) within a black hole beyond the event horizon. To make matters worse, we can't even be sure that the Laws of Physics as we've come to know them apply within that environment. In other words, nothing can ever be known of what actually happens (if anything) inside a black hole because there's simply no information to work with that would enable one to make any reliable determination(s) or formulate any fact based conclusion(s). As Astronomer Dr. David Floyd pointed out.... "At this point - and perhaps forever - we're restricted to making untestable assertions...." So, Moontanman, pending the advent of some future technology that allows us to penetrate the impenetrable, represented by the event horizon, and reach the unreachable, represented by the fantastic distances involved (around one quadrillion miles to the nearest black hole, and possibly much further), my opinion is that the statement I made earlier "The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period. This is irrefutable." is relatively accurate.

 

 

So we have to take your word for this? So far all I see is you making assertions of what you think is correct, much the same as those scientists who say that mathematically certain things are possible inside black holes. You say that because you say so no one can ever know what goes on inside a black hole...

 

The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of. at that time that statement was relatively accurate...

Edited September 8, 2012 by Moontanman

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "So we have to take your word for this?"

 

Not at all.

 

Moontanman "You say that because you say so no one can ever know what goes on inside a black hole..."

 

Well, it's not what I say, it's what Wikipedia and a variety of other sources say, including astronomers like Dr. David Floyd.

 

I wrote "The only seemingly reliable information available about black holes has to do with location, information which can be gathered by observing the effect a black hole has on matter and radiation in the vicinity, and the mass of a black hole can apparently be calculated by the effect it has on an orbiting star of known mass (open to correction).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole - Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with light and other electromagnetic radiation. Matter falling onto a black hole can form an accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe. If there are other stars orbiting a black hole, their orbit can be used to determine its mass and location.

 

I wrote "None of that can be used to aid speculation on what's actually happening beyond the event horizon though. It's well known now that extreme gravitational forces prevent any radiation or matter (a.k.a. information) from escaping a black hole once the event horizon has been crossed. With no information gathering capability available, it logically follows that no reliable determination(s) can be made or fact based conclusion(s) arrived at describing the prevailing condition(s) within a black hole beyond the event horizon. To make matters worse, we can't even be sure that the Laws of Physics as we've come to know them apply within that environment."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole - The defining feature of a black hole is the appearance of an event horizon—a boundary in spacetime through which matter and light can only pass inward towards the mass of the black hole. Nothing, not even light, can escape from inside the event horizon. The event horizon is referred to as such because if an event occurs within the boundary, information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.

 

I wrote "In other words, nothing can ever be known of what actually happens (if anything) inside a black hole because there's simply no information to work with that would enable one to make any reliable determination(s) or formulate any fact based conclusion(s)."

 

http://news.discovery.com/space/black-hole-alien-life-110413.html - Astronomer Dr. David Floyd.... "At this point - and perhaps forever - we're restricted to making untestable assertions...."

 

Montanman "The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of. at that time that statement was relatively accurate..."

 

Right, at that time that statement was relatively accurate, just as at this time this statement is relatively accurate.... "The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period." Maybe in another thousand years, if humanity survives, that will change. As far as your comparison of investigating the moon, a visible object a little over a quarter million miles away, to investigating a black hole, an invisible object over a quadrillion miles away.... more apples and oranges. Say, have you ever considered opening a fruit stand?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

Moontanman "So we have to take your word for this?"

 

Not at all.

 

Moontanman "You say that because you say so no one can ever know what goes on inside a black hole..."

 

Well, it's not what I say, it's what Wikipedia and a variety of other sources say, including astronomers like Dr. David Floyd.

 

I wrote "The only seemingly reliable information available about black holes has to do with location, information which can be gathered by observing the effect a black hole has on matter and radiation in the vicinity, and the mass of a black hole can apparently be calculated by the effect it has on an orbiting star of known mass (open to correction).

 

Wikipedia - Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with light and other electromagnetic radiation. Matter falling onto a black hole can form an accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe. If there are other stars orbiting a black hole, their orbit can be used to determine its mass and location.

 

I wrote "None of that can be used to aid speculation on what's actually happening beyond the event horizon though. It's well known now that extreme gravitational forces prevent any radiation or matter (a.k.a. information) from escaping a black hole once the event horizon has been crossed. With no information gathering capability available, it logically follows that no reliable determination(s) can be made or fact based conclusion(s) arrived at describing the prevailing condition(s) within a black hole beyond the event horizon. To make matters worse, we can't even be sure that the Laws of Physics as we've come to know them apply within that environment."

 

Wikipedia - The defining feature of a black hole is the appearance of an event horizon—a boundary in spacetime through which matter and light can only pass inward towards the mass of the black hole. Nothing, not even light, can escape from inside the event horizon. The event horizon is referred to as such because if an event occurs within the boundary, information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred.

 

I wrote "In other words, nothing can ever be known of what actually happens (if anything) inside a black hole because there's simply no information to work with that would enable one to make any reliable determination(s) or formulate any fact based conclusion(s)."

 

Astronomer Dr. David Floyd.... "At this point - and perhaps forever - we're restricted to making untestable assertions...."

 

Montanman "The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of. at that time that statement was relatively accurate..."

 

Right, at that time that statement was relatively accurate, just as at this time this statement is relatively accurate.... "The fact is that what goes on inside a black hole (if anything) cannot be known, period." Maybe in another thousand years, if humanity survives, that will change. As far as your comparison of investigating the moon, a visible object a little over a quarter million miles away, to investigating a black hole, an invisible object over a quadrillion miles away.... more apples and oranges. Say, have you ever considered opening a fruit stand?

 

 

Have you ever thought about following the rules? This is hypography, you are expected to show a link to the paper or site that you are using information from. Just claiming that Dr. someone or some site says this is not what is supposed to be done.

 

In all honesty i suspect that you are correct but all you have given me so far is what you say is true or claim someone else says. The point of this was to get you to show links to what you are claiming.

 

And 1000 years ago the moon was just as unattainable as the stars are today relatively speaking...

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "Have you ever thought about following the rules? This is hypography, you are expected to show a link to the paper or site that you are using information from. Just claiming that Dr. someone or some site says this is not what is supposed to be done so far is what you say is true or claim someone else says. The point of this was to get you to show links to what you are claiming."

 

Actually, I consider all the information I posted as falling more into the category of being common knowledge, similar to declarative statements like "Apples are red." or "Oranges are orange." Do these kind of statements require links to a paper or site too? Things could become rather tedious very quickly if that's the case. What's the standard? The links have been added though to satisfy your stalwart by the book approach, but then....

 

Do we have to take your word for all of this?

 

Post #7 - Moontanman "The idea that planets and even stars could orbit around the central part of a black inside the event horizon is wild to say the least. Time would flow so slowly to them they could conceivably persist far past the heat death of the universe."

 

Post #18 - 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...."

 

Post #38 - Moontanman "The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of."

 

Post #40 - Moontanman "And 1000 years ago the moon was just as unattainable as the stars are today relatively speaking..."

 

See what I mean about things very quickly becoming tedious?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Aemilius

[VoiceInTheWilderness]

"Have you ever thought about following the rules? This is hypography, you are expected to show a link to the paper or site that you are using information from. Just claiming that Dr. someone or some site says this is not what is supposed to be done.

 

In all honesty i suspect that you are correct but all you have given me so far is what you say is true or claim someone else says. The point of this was to get you to show links to what you are claiming."

 

 

LOL! Look at the entire history of HYPOgraphy's forum content.... when does all the pseudo intellectual ivory tower hypocrisy end? College Edumacated fools have thoroughly misguided the 'civilized' world's Schools, Corporations, and Governments for decades and the world is at yet another precipice, this one higher and more fragile than all before it combined.

 

Truly pathetic. The world has been hijacked by thin skinned intellectual cowards, whose purest idea of "peer review" is to poke one's head into the darkness and see who can breathe methane the longest.

 

Aemilius, shut the light off when you're done....

 

http://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm

 

Peace,

 

MR

[Buffy]

Truly pathetic.

Gosh, why would one ever keep hanging out with people one thinks are pathetic?

 

The man who has strong opinions and always says what he thinks is courageous - and friendless, :phones:

Buffy

[Guest Aemilius]

Buffy "The man who has strong opinions and always says what he thinks is courageous - and friendless...."

 

 

It looks to me like your making an unsubstantiated positive assertion here Buffy.... This is hypography, you are expected to show a link to a peer reviewed paper or reputable site that you are using information from. Just claiming that a man who has strong opinions and always says what he thinks is courageous but also friendless as a result is not what is supposed to be done. Also, you don't make clear whether what you're saying applies to just men, or men and women. In all honesty I suspect that you are correct, but all you have given me here so far is what you say is true or claim someone else says. You really should, as Moontanman pointed out to me earlier, show links to what you are claiming. (Just kidding around, nice to meet you!)

Edited September 10, 2012 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

Buffy "The man who has strong opinions and always says what he thinks is courageous - and friendless...."

 

 

It looks to me like your making an unsubstantiated positive assertion here Buffy.... This is hypography, you are expected to show a link to a peer reviewed paper or reputable site that you are using information from. Just claiming that a man who has strong opinions and always says what he thinks is courageous but also friendless as a result is not what is supposed to be done. Also, you don't make clear whether what you're saying applies to just men, or men and women. In all honesty I suspect that you are correct, but all you have given me here so far is what you say is true or claim someone else says. You really should, as Moontanman pointed out to me earlier, show links to what you are claiming. (Just kidding around, nice to meet you!)

 

 

Aemilus this is a discussion forum, it works by people backing up their assertions with links to the information so a person not involved can look up the info and not have to surf the web to find out who is most likely correct. This discussion is just not you and me talking but possibly hundreds of other people who just read the posts. For the discussion to make sense to them the things we assert much be backed up. It is part of the rules of the site. You can make light of it and ignore it all you want as far as i am concerned, i was simply trying to show you the ropes of this forum, I created this thread so someone who was hijacking other peoples threads would have some place to post his questions and assertions about black holes. . Go your own way dude...

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "Aemilus this is a discussion forum, it works by people backing up their assertions with links to the information so a person not involved can look up the info and not have to surf the web to find out who is most likely correct."

 

I understand that Moontanman. My impression is that you seem very intent on enforcing compliance with the rules (here and elsewhere), unless of course you're the one whose sources are either lacking or being questioned. Just an impression, maybe I'm wrong.

 

Moontanman "This discussion is just not you and me talking but possibly hundreds of other people who just read the posts. For the discussion to make sense to them the things we assert much be backed up. It is part of the rules of the site."

 

I read the rules.... "In general, back up your claims by using links or references." I've done that now. I've provided empirical reference information (and now accompanying links) generally supportive of my opinion. Even so, the generally supportive references were rejected.... Wikipedia being referred to by you as "some site" and the quote from Astronomer Dr. David Floyd (excerpted from a link you'd already provided) being referred to as "Dr. someone".

 

Moontanman "You can make light of it and ignore it all you want as far as i am concerned, i was simply trying to show you the ropes of this forum, I created this thread so someone who was hijacking other peoples threads would have some place to post his questions and assertions about black holes. Go your own way dude..."

 

There's nothing in the rules barring a little humor here and there (like your single humorous interjection in the thread "Gravity Driven Mechanisms" that contributed nothing), and your skipping over the post directed to you, choosing to focus instead on my humorously motivated post to Buffy doesn't change the fact that aside from the three links you posted earlier in post #8, described at the time as showing what happens or what's inside a black hole, a claim which was later withdrawn, means you now haven't posted one single link to any paper or site in support of your ongoing objection based on the idea that maybe, somehow, someday, just because, we'll be able to know what if anything happens beyond the event horizon, accompanied by a host of apples and oranges comparisons that lend no credibility to your position.

 

From the rules.... "If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on." Can you provide any links or even one general reference that empirically supports your own opinion here? I'm doubtful....

 

Post #7 - Moontanman "The idea that planets and even stars could orbit around the central part of a black inside the event horizon is wild to say the least. Time would flow so slowly to them they could conceivably persist far past the heat death of the universe."

 

Post #18 - 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...."

 

Post #38 - Moontanman "The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of."

 

Post #40 - Moontanman "And 1000 years ago the moon was just as unattainable as the stars are today relatively speaking..."

 

My opinion (now shown to be empirically supported) is that the only reliable information that can be obtained about black holes consists of being able to infer their location by noting the effect they have on matter and radiation in the vicinity outside the event horizon, and that an approximate estimation of the mass of a black hole can be determined, but only when a star of known mass is orbiting it....

 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole) - "Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with light and other electromagnetic radiation. Matter falling onto a black hole can form an accretion disk heated by friction, forming some of the brightest objects in the universe. If there are other stars orbiting a black hole, their orbit can be used to determine its mass and location."

 

....and that I don't think endlessly speculating on the nature of something that likely can never be known should be characterized as "intelligent speculation", which agrees with Dr. David Floyd's assessment (http://news.discovery.com/space/black-hole-alien-life-110413.html) that right now, and perhaps forever, science is restricted to making untestable assertions as to what (if anything) actually happens beyond the event horizon. I say that since there's no information available to work with concerning any internal aspect of a black hole beyond the event horizon....

 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole) - "The defining feature of a black hole is the appearance of an event horizon—a boundary in spacetime through which matter and light can only pass inward towards the mass of the black hole. Nothing, not even light, can escape from inside the event horizon. The event horizon is referred to as such because if an event occurs within the boundary, information from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred."

 

....that no conclusions can logically be arrived at (empirically, theoretically, intuitively or using a crystal ball) regarding anything that may or may not be transpiring beyond the event horizon, including whether or not the Laws of Physics as we know them could even be employed for such an evaluation (if it were possible), which also leads me to question the veracity of CraigD's remark that "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." When it comes to the entire Universe with all it's many black holes itself existing inside a black hole.... this requires an almost revolting level of belief that far surpasses even that of religious faith.... the very definition (in my opinion) of fantasy dressed up as "intelligent speculation".

 

I maintain that no reasonable argument on any level can arise favoring one scenario being any more or less likely than any other based on the absolute unavailability of any information that could be used to prove anything one way or the other when it comes to the correctness of any theory advanced, as Dr. David Floyd pointed out. I would reject on the same grounds CraigD's remark 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." At this point there's absolutely nothing to suggest that anything beyond the event horizon can be measured in any way. Without knowing anything of a black holes internal stucture (if any) or even to what degree the Laws of Physics do or don't apply beyond the event horizon, combined with there likely being no way to ever verify or reliably interpret any data obtained logically renders any conclusion derived from the analysis of such data useless. I see nothing substantial or compelling in the links provided that would tend to empirically support (open to correction) those remarks in any way either....

 

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

Edited September 11, 2012 by Aemilius

[belovelife]

Moontanman "Aemilus this is a discussion forum, it works by people backing up their assertions with links to the information so a person not involved can look up the info and not have to surf the web to find out who is most likely correct."

 

Post #18 - 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...."

 

Post #38 - Moontanman "The fantastic distances involved are no more reason to say we can't know than saying 1000 years ago the fantastic distance to the moon precluded us from ever knowing what it was made of."

 

Post #40 - Moontanman "And 1000 years ago the moon was just as unattainable as the stars are today relatively speaking..."

 

My opinion (now shown to be empirically supported) is that the only reliable information that can be obtained about black holes consists of being able to infer their location by noting the effect they have on matter and radiation in the vicinity outside the event horizon, and that an approximate estimation of the mass of a black hole can be determined, but only when a star of known mass is orbiting it....

 

 

(http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_hole) - "The defining feature of a black hole is the appearance of an event horizon—a boundary in spacetime through which matter and light can only pass inward towards the mass of the black hole. Nothing, not even light, can escape from inside the event horizon.

 

I CraigD's remark 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.

 

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

 

:lol:

 

 

yes, but inside a quasar,

 

if the impetali reaction is going on, it should be obvious if we gain the ability to observe a quasar for long periods of time, like in thousands to millions of years

[Guest Aemilius]

belovelife "yes, but inside a quasar, if the

impetali reaction is going on, it should be

obvious if we gain the ability to observe a

quasar for long periods of time, like in

thousands to millions of years"

 

[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. 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

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?

The estimates to which I’m referring are of the mass of radius of the observable universe, not of those of a given actual stellar mass or supermassive black hole. These are very well-studied estimates, as shown by the many links from the linked to wikipedia article I cited.

 

I then calculate the mass of a nonrotating, neutrally charged black hole with Schwarzschild radius to this estimated mass of the universe (a simple and well-know calculation), and note that it is not much different than the estimated radius of the universe.

 

By “intuitive level”, I don’t mean that I arrived at these estimates and calculations using intuition, but that they are useful in informing the physics student’s intuition concerning [Dokuchaev’s speculative work on the possibility of stable orbits of bodies inside the event horizon of a black hole with mass much smaller than the order of 10⁵³ kg, such the one believed to be at the core of own Milky Way galaxy, which has mass on the order of 10³⁷ kg.

 

What could any such estimates possibly be based on if absolutely nothing is known of any internal aspect of a black hole?

If the universe is a black hole, we and everything we can observe are all inside it. Light cannot in theory travel from a point inside a black hole’s event horizon to one onside it, but can travel between two points inside it, or between two points outside it.

 

So, while little may be know about the inside of a black hole from outside it, in principle much may be known from inside it.

 

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.

I believe you find work such as Dokucheav’s not logical nor well-reasoned, Aemilius, because you’re using “gut level” intuitive logic, rather than formal mathematical logic.

 

In my previous post, I hinted at a way to bridge the intuitive gap gap between these kinds of logic by posing a very big (spatially) thought experiment:

• Assume General Relativity is correct on large scales. It follows that the formulae for Schwarzschild radii are valid – that is, given a mass, we can calculate the radius of an event horizon.
  
• Ignore confounding phenomena such as cosmic expansion, because its confounding.
  
• Consider that the observable universe is “ordinary” (as it’s all we can observe, it can’t be anything but)
  
• Consider that the universe appears to have a lot of empty space in which additional mass, visible or “dark” could, in thought-experiment principle, so even if the universe’s mass is too small to result in a Schwarzschild radii larger than its radius, adding mass could change this.
  
• Would the addition of mass (which, by good estimates, isn’t actually necessary) result in the universe suddenly becoming “un-ordinary”
  

The point of this is to intuit that the entire universe – or, more easily visualizeable, our neighborhood of it – inside a black hole isn’t observably much different than all or part of it not inside one. If stable orbits, life, etc. are possible in our ordinary neighborhood, then perhaps, as Dokuchaev speculates, they are inside much smaller black holes.

 

It hasn't been shown that any gravitational force from bodies within a black hole (if there are any) can be measured.

Think, for a moment, about this, Aemilius.

 

As you’ve read in the wikipedia articles you linked, black holes are observed by their effect on matter outside of their event horizons, such as hot accretions disks and neighboring stars (they’re also observable via gravitational lensing, but this isn’t important to this discussion). Black holes interact with this matter via gravitational force, via the same physical laws – General Relativity and, in the classical approximation, universal gravitation – as bodies that are not black holes. The gravitational force of a black hole, and hence its mass, can and is precisely measured.

 

The point I tried to make is that, if there are interesting arrangements of matter inside black holes, as Dokucheav suggests, or if there are not, as most theory published in the preceeding decades has assumed, it or its absence could be detected and measured by changes in gravitational force at different points the same distance from the center of gravity of the black hole, in essentially the same way that variations in the density of the Earth and other planets are measured. That is, Dokucheav’s theory is experimentally testable, though not with present day instruments.

 

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.

In principle, with a sufficiently sensitive gravimeter, you actually can detect the arrangement of masses inside a locked bank vault while flying over it. In practice, airborn gravimeters are used to find deeply buried oil and minerals, and were, according to some sources, used during the cold war to track submerged submarines from aircraft (references to this are few – this is one, though not very readable)

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "The estimates to which I’m referring are of the mass of radius of the observable universe, not of those of a given actual stellar mass or supermassive black hole. These are very well-studied estimates, as shown by the many links from the linked to wikipedia article I cited.

 

An argument from authority?

 

CraigD "I then calculate the mass of a nonrotating, neutrally charged black hole with Schwarzschild radius to this estimated mass of the universe (a simple and well-know calculation), and note that it is not much different than the estimated radius of the universe"

 

I just don't see this approach as lending any credibility at all to the notion that the observable universe is a black hole. Of course, I can't be sure either way, but would lean more in the direction of Sean Carroll's (Senior Research Associate, Department of Physics, CIT) opinion rather than the above. I think that, logically, any line of reasoning that leads to an estimation based solely on a theoretical construct which can likely never be proven one way or the other, as is the case here, is tantamount to being an untestable assertion, very similar to other untestable assertions in the form of speculation with regard to the nature of the prevailing conditions or environment (if any) beyond the event horizon. An estimate arrived at in such a way, no matter how well studied, can really never amount to more than a guesstimation.

 

CraigD "If the universe is a black hole, we and everything we can observe are all inside it. Light cannot in theory travel from a point inside a black hole’s event horizon to one outside it, but can travel between two points inside it, or between two points outside it.

 

So, while little may be know about the inside of a black hole from outside it, in principle much may be known from inside it."

 

Circular logic? I would agree that in theory light cannot travel from a point beyond the event horizon to one outside it, and I would agree that photons can travel between two points outside a black hole based on the empirical evidence. I couldn't possibly agree or disagree though that photons can travel between two points beyond the event horizon because there's no way to know that one way or the other.... it's clearly just another untestable assertion.

 

CraigD "I believe you find work such as Dokucheav’s not logical nor well-reasoned, Aemilius, because you’re using “gut level” intuitive logic, rather than formal mathematical logic."

 

On the contrary, I can't find Dokucheav’s work to be logical or illogical based on any form of intuitive or formal analysis.... it's simply untestable. In other words, whether he's right or wrong there's no way to know if he's right or wrong and likely never will be. I would think that as a Professor of Physics he would see this kind of indefinitely unverifiable open ended speculation as a seriously flawed and truncated version of the scientific method that will produce nothing of any consequence.

 

CraigD "As you’ve read in the wikipedia articles you linked, black holes are observed by their effect on matter outside of their event horizons, such as hot accretions disks and neighboring stars (they’re also observable via gravitational lensing, but this isn’t important to this discussion)."

 

Understood.... but I would replace the words "observed" and "observable" with "located" and "locatable".

 

CraigD "Black holes interact with this matter via gravitational force, via the same physical laws – General Relativity and, in the classical approximation, universal gravitation – as bodies that are not black holes."

 

Agreed.... but a black holes interaction with matter and electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity via the same physical laws you mention, similar in nature to bodies that are not black holes, cannot be extended with any real confidence or certainty beyond the event horizon. In other words.... any information gathered by observing a black holes gravitational interaction with matter and electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity would reveal nothing informationally about prevailing conditions or the environment within the black hole itself beyond the event horizon.... it would seem all we can really know is location and mass.

 

CraigD "The point I tried to make is that, if there are interesting arrangements of matter inside black holes, as Dokucheav suggests, or if there are not, as most theory published in the preceeding decades has assumed, it or its absence could be detected and measured by changes in gravitational force at different points the same distance from the center of gravity of the black hole, in essentially the same way that variations in the density of the Earth and other planets are measured."

 

I don't think so. You'd essentially be applying the laws of Physics as they pertain to the environment outside the black hole to the environment beyond the event horizon where there is at least some doubt as to there applicability. Then there's the problem of how any information gathered could be meaningfully interpreted. One wouldn't be able to tell what was being detected without being able to image it, or even know if it was real without knowing what laws (if any) do or don't apply beyond the event horizon.

 

CraigD "The point of this is to intuit that the entire universe – or, more easily visualizeable, our neighborhood of it – inside a black hole isn’t observably much different than all or part of it not inside one. If stable orbits, life, etc. are possible in our ordinary neighborhood, then perhaps, as Dokuchaev speculates, they are inside much smaller black holes."

 

Well, maybe you're right.... maybe some day in the future, if humanity survives in a condition that still allows for space exploration, and has figured out how to travel 1,600 light years to the nearest black hole in a reasonable length of time, and has developed technology capable of probing black holes, Mr. Dokuchaev's theory will be tested.... pretty thin.

 

CraigD "In principle, with a sufficiently sensitive gravimeter, you actually can detect the arrangement of masses inside a locked bank vault while flying over it. In practice, airborn gravimeters are used to find deeply buried oil and minerals, and were, according to some sources, used during the cold war to track submerged submarines from aircraft...."

 

Good point, but the difference is we can open the bank vault to verify the findings. Something else to consider.... If the observable universe, which has many black holes in it is itself a black hole, it would follow that there could be many black holes within a black hole, which would dramatically complicate any already questionable interpretation of the gravitational analysis, and make it, well.... problematic to say the least.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Aemilius

[sunshaker]

I believe our universe is expanding in lower dimensional space, blackholes are vortexs allowing the lower dimensional space to rush in, super massive blackholes for galaxies, and atom size black holes for solar systems.