A query about Black Holes

[Farsight]

I agree sebby, but thousands wouldn't.

 

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Below this radius, spacetime is so strongly curved that any light ray emitted in this region, regardless of the direction in which it is emitted, will travel towards the centre of the system. Because relativity forbids anything from traveling faster than light, anything below the Schwarzschild radius – including the constituent particles of the gravitating object – will collapse into the centre. A gravitational singularity, a region of theoretically infinite density, forms at this point.

[sebbysteiny]

I hadn't considered the implications of 'infinite density' at a black hole's centre. Does 'infinte density' create a singularity? And is there infinite density in the first place? Does this imply infinite mass, which is clearly wrong.

 

In light of that, I will not rule out the possibility of yet another singularity at the centre of the black hole even though everywhere at the schwarszchild radius, ie the even horizen, is definitely a singularity.

[sebbysteiny]

Thinking about it more, if all the mass 'sucked' into a black hole is smeared arount the event horizen, can there actually be any mass at all inside the event horizen?

 

I don't believe I ever asked about that at Uni, so it's out of my knowledge range.

[Farsight]

Weird innit, sebby. Black Holes are Hollow... :cup:

[arkain101]

Please allow me to layout the prediction of black holes under my theory of relativity. It is not what most people think.

 

By following the postulates" of this theory of relativity we arrive at the following description.

 

First we have a very hot large star that collapses into a high potential energy black hole. That is it does not suggest it is hot, because it may be contained infact by its density, but the potential of energy is massive, if for example the gravity force was released.

See Entropy and Hawking Radiation of Black Holes : Wiki

The energy that eminates from this star comes from very very high velocity particles. The particles themselves are under such extreme accelerations and relativistic effects that the time frame becomes significantly frozen.

 

particles undergoing extreme accelerations:

 

Wiki:

If ultra-high-energy collisions of particles in a particle accelerator can create microscopic black holes, it is expected that all types of particles will be emitted by black hole evaporation, providing key evidence for any grand unified theory.

 

Energy in this theory is space. Space is Stages of relativistic Permittivity and permeability. A distance of C or that C is observed in, I refer to this as a C meter.

Let us explain C-meter:

Inside a stars gravity is a small C-meter, a different Permittivity and permeability. Outside of a large gravity source, say for an astronaught far out in space is a large C-meter, another relatvisitv value of Permittivity and permeability of space. Energy that comes from a small C-Meter is created inside contracted space. As this energy goes out through space as it were it passes through larger C-meters, and the energy is stretched out, the time is stretched out, and so with the frequency. The astronaugh far out in space is in a large C-meter space. When that energy reaches his frame it is stretched out per say. The speed (or energy state) at which this observer views the light causes the energy to display time slow, low frequency, and low energy. And this goes for vice versa of course.

 

So we see that because this star has condesned so much matter and energy into such a small place the C-meter is very much so near zero or at zero. As you may have already picked up, it is to say YES, energy does escape from this star, or black hole. The stages of C-meter, or space-time curvature as it is well described as is the energy that emminates from the star and stretches out tremendously, so super low frequencies. Forming so called gravity waves.

 

The energy, although not directly observable due to its tremendously stretched form (low frequency), is waves of relativistic space. An atom that interacts with this wave observes space contract and it thus changes posisition relative to all surrounding observers.. That is, in its own frame space contracts and it finds it gets closer to the source.

 

The black hole itself is one big blob of time traveling material, inside an incredibly small C-meter. The material us so hot it is undergoing relativistic effects intense we observe it to be frozen in time. The energy inside the event horizon is about as high of a frequency and energy state that is possible, along with the mass velocities. Yet all this energy does escape, but it finds itself entering completely differenty permattivity&permeability space (larger C-meter) and becomes incredibly stretched out. Energy is space itself, and it forms the intense space curvature we calculate to be surrounding a black hole.

 

This predicts that a black hole may be observeable from an observation point of very strong source of gravity a smaller C-meter. That is, if you were capable to orbit very close to the sun, you may be capable to speed up the the surrounding universe enough to visualize black holes. In a strong source of gravity your smaller C-meter would compress all the time and energy in that you view. That is, it would speed up time, increase frequency of energy, and increase energy level.

 

However the surrounding area of a black hole will not be expected to have consistent, smoother transition of C-meter. The unbalanced value of energy emitting would cause a whirl pool of unfixed C-meter states in all sorts of directions, ripping apart matter.

 

Another form of view a black hole would be to view it under extreme accelleration. This would compress your own frames C-meter, which inturn would increase the observed energy as mentioned before.

[Pyrotex]

PROVES? The point is, it isn't a point! Ergo no singularity! :cup:

You know, I keep giving out free clues and nobody picks up on them. In discussing General Relativity (and the subject of Black Holes is a subset of GR) no statement can make any sense unless you complet the sentence with, "as observed by an observer in the Frame of Reference XYZ".

 

So, though you are technically correct for an observer outside the Event Horizon, you are incorrect for an observer who has fallen inside the Event Horizon. Einstein greatest contribution to physics was not E=mc^2; it was this:

 

All we can say about REALITY is what we, or another observer, will observe.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing about blackholes that most physicists forget about is that nobody has ever collect real blackhole data except at it outer perimeter, where light is excaping. The rest is just unsubstantiated mathematics that create the picture of a unique and extreme phenomena. Everyone just assumes it will turn out like the math, even before proof any proof been made available.

 

If you think logically, how much space can a blackhole compress into a point? It cannot be infinite space. It only pulls in the space in its close proximity. This is substantiated by the observation of blackholes affecting close stars, i.e, real data not assumed outcome. The blackhole can only compress that much distance to a point. It will not take infinite time to fall into say 100M miles of space compressed into a point. It will take 100M miles/velocity. If it took infinite time to fall into a blackhole, the blackhole would have to be something like the primordial atom, so all of space of the universe is highly compressed.

 

I think the point assumption is also incorrect. This helps the math close, but convenience does not imply reality. Blackholes, i.e, real and not ideal, more than likely have finite size. The point would come if it could pull in infinite distance like the ideal blackhole of math theory.

[arkain101]

So, though you are technically correct for an observer outside the Event Horizon, you are incorrect for an observer who has fallen inside the Event Horizon. Einstein greatest contribution to physics was not E=mc^2; it was this:

 

All we can say about REALITY is what we, or another observer, will observe.

 

Precisely!

 

I hope you see I stress this point in my theory stronger than any.

[sebbysteiny]

One thing about blackholes that most physicists forget about is that nobody has ever collect real blackhole data except at it outer perimeter, where light is excaping. The rest is just unsubstantiated mathematics that create the picture of a unique and extreme phenomena. Everyone just assumes it will turn out like the math, even before proof any proof been made available.

 

If you think logically, how much space can a blackhole compress into a point? It cannot be infinite space. It only pulls in the space in its close proximity. This is substantiated by the observation of blackholes affecting close stars, i.e, real data not assumed outcome. The blackhole can only compress that much distance to a point. It will not take infinite time to fall into say 100M miles of space compressed into a point. It will take 100M miles/velocity. If it took infinite time to fall into a blackhole, the blackhole would have to be something like the primordial atom, so all of space of the universe is highly compressed.

 

I think the point assumption is also incorrect. This helps the math close, but convenience does not imply reality. Blackholes, i.e, real and not ideal, more than likely have finite size. The point would come if it could pull in infinite distance like the ideal blackhole of math theory.

 

I can understand what you are saying. Even if I disagree, what you are saying is respectable. As you pointed out, no data inside a black hole has been taken. So your theory may be true and I can understand why it might be true. But then again, there might be a genuine singularity too. We don't know cos there's no evidence either way.

 

But there is one small part of your post that I can say is wrong (hopefully). Blackholes will not have a finite size.

 

If you do the calculations in statistical mechanics for how black holes form in the first place, you will see that there is no force pushing them apart and the force of gravity pushing it together. So EVERYTHING accumilates in the centre and nothing can stop it.

 

The particles act like bosons and so can all be compressed into the same spot. I see no reason why everything cannot be in the centre.

 

The only problem I'm having is seeing how anything collects inside the event horizen at all. Surely all the mass is at the event horizen?

 

Pyrotex has said 'relative to observer outside black hole'. But that's fine. It takes infinite time for something to fall inside a black hole according to the rest of the universe, so how can a black hole have any mass inside the event horizen?

[Farsight]

That's the $64,000 dollar question, sebby. It surely is an interesting topic. I think the point that intrigues me is just how much I took black holes for granted without ever really thinking about them. IMHO there's more things like that, in physics as well as the world at large. And getting to grips with it all is just so interesting.

 

Pyrotex, point noted. I have to say I do have this ontological leaning. I tend to take the view that what is, is what is, not what I observe. Maybe I shouldn't. I'll give it some thought

[IDMclean]

If no one minds I have a question. Can a body of mass-energy fall into an event horizon? I mean Quantum Mechanically.

 

As far as I can tell from logical reasoning, things can fall to the surface of the event horizon but not beyond. Infact near as I can tell it would seem that the "interior" of the event horizon would actually be something akin to the "exterior" of the universe. You can think of it as a hole punched in existence.

 

Classically space is a non-entity, lacking in any properities. We have not created perfect vacuum in the labs, what if the singularity of a blackhole was perfect vacuum?

[Jay-qu]

The event horizon is the point at which the escape velocity becomes greater than that of light, does that also mean that at this point space time curvature becomes infinite - along with time dilation? I dont think so, but would like to hear it from someone who has seen the relavent equations :)

[Buffy]

Not working from the equations but some conclusions from the thought experiment:

• An outside observer watching you fall into a black hole would see you slow down to the point that it "takes forever" for you to fall in (from SR).
  
• You however, will not even have time to say "whoops, I'm dead!"
  

The point here being that the only thing that "never gets to the center of the Tootsie Pop" is your *ability* to see it: It gets there nearly instantaneously, but the photons that would show this can't get to you, and you are left with incredibly slow photons just outside the event horizon that are struggling to get out.

 

No one has a picture of a black hole, and its pretty clear that the "completely black circle with a halo" that we see in "artists renderings" is silly. If you were able to see through the intense swirl and brightness of the X-ray emissions their violent interactions with the surrounding sucked in material jetting out of it, what you might see is a Daliesque montage of everything that ever hit the event horizon....but you can still be sure that what you can see long ago went straight to the singularity in the center...

 

Crushed,

Buffy

[Jay-qu]

Is it really prudent to say "went" because from the outside frame of existance, while it hasnt seen it cross the event horizon, that doesnt mean it actually has.. odd really - because that would imply the black hole never gains in mass, it would have a sphere of matter about its horizon..

[sebbysteiny]

The point here being that the only thing that "never gets to the center of the Tootsie Pop" is your *ability* to see it: It gets there nearly instantaneously, but the photons that would show this can't get to you, and you are left with incredibly slow photons just outside the event horizon that are struggling to get out.

 

It was my understanding that according to time as measured by the outside universe, an object takes infinite time to fall into the black hole. Yes the falling object will fall in instantly, but according to the universe, this will take place in imaginary time and space beyond the Universe.

 

I think KickAssClown is onto something saying that insight the event horizen is outside the universe.

 

But the question that is still completely bugging me 2 pages later is: is a black hole hollow?

 

I think, in its formation, mass must have got more and more compressed, but when enough mass is compressed into a small enough sphere such that light cannot escape, the mass inside the the event horizen how remains constant and the only thing that gains mass is the swirly bit at the event horizen.

[Buffy]

Is it really prudent to say "went" because from the outside frame of existance, while it hasnt seen it cross the event horizon, that doesnt mean it actually has.. odd really - because that would imply the black hole never gains in mass, it would have a sphere of matter about its horizon..

True, but you have to remember that its not Einstein's Theory of Existentialism.... :D

 

If Dubya falls over in a forest,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Alright I have to ask a few things.

 

How much energy does it take to accelerate a body of mass to the speed of light?

How much energy does it take to leave the universe?

On the other hand:

How much mass does it take to stop energy?