A query about Black Holes

[sebbysteiny]

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

 

Relative to what? The answer doesn't really matter because it takes infinite energy no matter what speed you started off initially.

 

How much energy does it take to leave the universe?

 

I'm not sure that's actually possible.

 

How much mass does it take to stop energy?

 

What do you mean by 'stop energy'?

 

A photon can be 'stopped' (ie absorbed) by something as small as an electrong.

[Buffy]

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

Yep, an infinite amount. "Relative to" is actually meaningless though.

How much energy does it take to leave the universe?

Space is curved according to Einstein, so if you go in the "same direction" long enough, you will get back to where you started from...

How much mass does it take to stop energy?

Any amount of energy no matter how small will move a mass of any non-infinite size. Mass does not "stop" energy, it "transforms" it, usually into either kinetic or potential energy.

 

Energetically,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

So then what is then meant by "Infinite" Spacetime curviture at (or beyond?) the event horizon?

 

Like I said, I am treating the singulary as if it were the "edge" of the universe. As has been put forth, mass-energy can not leave the universe because if it travels far enough it will simply follow the curve of spacetime, and remain in the universe none the less.

 

This is to say, an infinite amount of energy would be required to break free of the universe. Assuming a model of a finite universe, in which mass-energy is finite and conserved, this would be an impossibility.

 

So the question remains, can a given body pass "into" the event horizon? My intutive answer is no, no it can't. I would like to ask two questions, "What is the difference then between the 'inside' of a blackhole, and the 'outside' of a closed universe?", "Could not the blackhole be of similar, or identical geometry to that of a klein bottle?"

[Buffy]

So then what is then meant by "Infinite" Spacetime curviture at (or beyond?) the event horizon?

I'm not sure where this is coming from. The thing that is at the event horizon is simply the point at which gravitation is strong enough to prevent c from being an adequate escape velocity. Its no more a "dividing line between universes" than the "sound barrier" is. What outside observers see is notoriously wierd, but there's nothing that would indicate that its a "door into another dimension" except as conjecture. Such conjectures could indeed be in conflict with the current description of the physics involved, but as they are simple conjecture without any data to show such conjecture possible, it cannot result in a conflict that needs to be resolved. So,

Like I said, I am treating the singulary as if it were the "edge" of the universe. As has been put forth, mass-energy can not leave the universe because if it travels far enough it will simply follow the curve of spacetime, and remain in the universe none the less.

...is getting into major conjecture: you're assuming that the singularity is an "edge." Now I think that conjecture is really cool, but if anything, the fact that you've concluded that it results in an impossibility is jugdgement of the conjecture, not the model dictated by GR.

So the question remains, can a given body pass "into" the event horizon? My intutive answer is no, no it can't.

Only if you insist on the conjecture being true! But I'll play:

"What is the difference then between the 'inside' of a blackhole, and the 'outside' of a closed universe?"

The inside of a black hole--inside its event horizon--looks just like it does outside, just a little wierd (assuming you could slow yourself down enough to enjoy the ride which would be unbelievably brief!). You would not perceive yourself as being "inside:" its not like everything goes black or like zipping into the monolith at the end of 2001. The wacky thing about a closed universe as its currently conceived is that there's no such thing as "outside:" Its called the "universe" because it is the one everything. Its incredibly hard to grok this in an intuitive way: there's *no edge*. This is completely unlike the black hole, which continues to look the same even as you decend "into" it. (I don't have the reference for this, but it for the most part comes from a public lecture by Kip Thorne that I went to years ago).

 

"Could not the blackhole be of similar, or identical geometry to that of a klein bottle?"

That's a really interesting question (inside is outside), and if you're into conjectures, its the jumping off point for the much less problematic idea that black holes could provide an entry to a "worm hole." But that would just take you to other locations in the same universe, not pop you into a new one.

 

I don't want to dissuade you in pursuing this course, but the point is to find descriptions that actually fit in with our data and supported physical models, or else start proposing ways that both accomodate that data and fit in the conjectural model as well.

 

They're actually white,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

ts no more a "dividing line between universes" than the "sound barrier" is. What outside observers see is notoriously wierd, but there's nothing that would indicate that its a "door into another dimension" except as conjecture.

 

This is not my position quite the opposite, actually. I have said time and time again. I do not believe in an "outside of the universe" in any way that we can observe. I believe in a limit to reality. I believe the the universe is finite, and various data sources would back that conviction. I am not saying you would pass out of this universe. Quite the opposite, as I have said. I am saying that at most the thing that moves along the spacetime curviture would either A) stay contained along a mobius like strip or :phones: be ejected to the point of least resistence IE the surface of the universe.

 

I am saying, there is no "inside" to be considered in the blackhole. Very much like the name would imply, hole. As in the absence of. A hard concept, yes, but a viable concept none the less.

 

Hence the introduction of the concept of hypergeometric possibilities. Not more "dimensions" like dimension x, which is some how outside the set of what exists, but simply a different position in the set of what exists.

 

say we have circle, O, inside the lines are what exist, everything else doesn't. Things that exist can not fall "into" the circle, they can only move along the lines. This is what I mean, though extremely simplified. What exist can only move along what exists. If the event horizon is a place where zero and infinity meets, then that void is "outside" what exists. It would seem to me, by the various sources of reliable, supportable data, and by what follows logically, our universe is finite. Therefore Infinity and Zero have null place within finite.

 

To put it plainly and to quote a favorite character "There are simply no holes in my book."

[Buffy]

This is not my position quite the opposite, actually.

Okay, that's cool. I just misunderstood you. Sorry!

 

But I'm confused about what you mean by:

I am saying that at most the thing that moves along the spacetime curviture would either A) stay contained along a mobius like strip or be ejected to the point of least resistence IE the surface of the universe.

What's the "surface of the universe?"

Hence the introduction of the concept of hypergeometric possibilities. Not more "dimensions" like dimension x, which is some how outside the set of what exists, but simply a different position in the set of what exists.

GR curvature is hyperbolic, but it sounds like you're talking about superstring-like, wound up dimensions, which is again conjecture, but really interesting! Can you expound on what you mean by this? What you describe here:

...say we have circle, O, inside the lines are what exist, everything else doesn't. Things that exist can not fall "into" the circle, they can only move along the lines.

...is bascially GR's description of gravity: yes, you're moving along a "curved" line that represents movement toward increasing gravity, so this part of what you're saying makes perfect sense. I think you mean to say more here, so please go ahead....

To put it plainly and to quote a favorite character "There are simply no holes in my book."

How true!

 

Curiouser and Curiouser, :phones:

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Okay, that's cool. I just misunderstood you. Sorry!

 

I am saying that at most the thing that moves along the spacetime curviture would either A) stay contained along a mobius like strip or be ejected to the point of least resistence IE the surface of the universe.

 

But I'm confused about what you mean by:What's the "surface of the universe?"

 

Hence the introduction of the concept of hypergeometric possibilities. Not more "dimensions" like dimension x, which is some how outside the set of what exists, but simply a different position in the set of what exists.

 

GR curvature is hyperbolic, but it sounds like you're talking about superstring-like, wound up dimensions, which is again conjecture, but really interesting! Can you expound on what you mean by this?

 

What you describe here:...

...say we have circle, O, inside the lines are what exist, everything else doesn't. Things that exist can not fall "into" the circle, they can only move along the lines.

 

is bascially GR's description of gravity: yes, you're moving along a "curved" line that represents movement toward increasing gravity, so this part of what you're saying makes perfect sense. I think you mean to say more here, so please go ahead....

 

Curiouser and Curiouser, :phones:

Buffy

 

The surface of the universe is the area where spacetime curviture rounds back on itself, closing the system. Now I am going a little out of my own basis, in that I have certain critisms of space-time itself, but I am explaining from a common basis. In a finite universe, with a finite quantity of mass-energy, and a finite space-time, it naturally falls out that the universe has this surface. The system closes itself.

 

I'm not talking hypergeometries like in string theory, or superstring theory. I am talking simple hypergeometries of the 4D variety. Like the Mobius strip, the Klein Bootle, and related shapes. My geometry is not to good so those are the only ones I am remotely familar with in a formal sense. Really it is simple as a balloon with a hole in it. The air inside will seep to the outside, lacking the capability (escape velocity, or energy) to break away from the balloon, the air will stick to the balloon, lacking any other mass in the universe.

 

This is where I wish I knew more about Gaussian geometries. Need the Calculus one of these days.

 

Now in Quantum Mechanics you have a replacement principle to the path of least resistence. That is the path of least action. In General relativity this is expressed as the path of shortest distance. This is all related to Closeness, if not the same thing. I am not a math wizard so I would not know with good certainty.

 

This all collaborates to do two things. One is it keeps mass-energy from leaving the system, hence conservation, and two it means whenever an infinity or zero is involved the path changes. It is a priori that the resistence (or actions required) beyond the event horizon are infinite, and therefore crossing "into" the void that is predict at the center of a blackhole becomes impossible as it violates this principle.

 

In summary, to cross the event horizon into the "weird zone" of infinite density and space-time curviture would take infinite actions.

 

This of course isn't even getting at the possibilities of Tachyonic behavior, without causality violations. A paper I read recently, thanks to Uncle AI, certainly supports it. Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality.

 

In short I am not talking about superstrings, or dark matter, big bang or any other ghost stories like that. I am saying there is not a center to the tootiespop, hence the name hole. Nor am I saying there is anything in the hole, that is absurd. I do however say that their is a definite edge to the hole, and that edge has potential to go somewhere, either nearby or to a higher or lower mass-energy state.

 

If the universe is composed of matter, and form matter interactions emerges the properties of mass-energy, and from mass-energy interactions emerges the properties of space-time then the universe is subject to the same rules that the components are made up of. The Total energy of the universe can be expressed like anything else. E=mc^2, and all that entails.

[Jay-qu]

At a singularity space time curvature becomes infinite, so that would imply there is an infinite amount of space stuck down that hole :phones:

 

But if measured from the outside, the BH will most certainly have a finite volume.

 

Paradox anyone?

 

Perhaps another reason why some scientists believe that singularities just cant form in nature.

[Buffy]

The surface of the universe is the area where spacetime curviture rounds back on itself, closing the system.

That would actually be everywhere! No matter where you start, you go in a "straight line" and you end up in the same place.....

In a finite universe, with a finite quantity of mass-energy, and a finite space-time, it naturally falls out that the universe has this surface.

Nope. No surface. Unless you mean every point in the universe is on the surface (e.g. a 3-space in a 4-coordinate system in analytic geometric terms), although I'm not sure where this goes....

I'm not talking hypergeometries like in string theory, or superstring theory. I am talking simple hypergeometries of the 4D variety. Like the Mobius strip, the Klein Bootle, and related shapes.

Topological elements like these do use a next higher dimension--3d for a mobius strip or 4d for a Klein bottle--but this would map physically into a dimension other than time, that is it would probably be a 5th dimension. However if you mean to use it conceptually, then yes the Klein bottle does form a model for the notion behind black-holes-as-worm-holes idea. I'm not sure how you're mapping these concepts onto a "shape" of the universe in order to get it a "surface" though...

...It is a priori that the resistence (or actions required) beyond the event horizon are infinite, and therefore crossing "into" the void that is predict at the center of a blackhole becomes impossible as it violates this principle...to cross the event horizon into the "weird zone" of infinite density and space-time curviture would take infinite actions....

But I'm not sure how this leads to a "void...at the center of a black hole," nor why it supports the notion that the event horizon implies "infinite resistance." Yes, the *escape velocity* would require infinite force, but this does not imply that any action whatsoever would require it. The infinite density is predicted to occur at the center of the mass of the black hole, and the event horizon is a distance from that center of mass, not a "shell." All this according to conventional wisdom.

 

OTOH, if the model of a black hole is that all matter stops at the event horizon and somehow is "held there", you've got to come up with some sort of explanation for how this void repels the force from all sides to collapse. Is this "pressure" from "outside the universe?"

....I am saying there is not a center to the tootiespop, hence the name hole....I do however say that their is a definite edge to the hole, and that edge has potential to go somewhere, either nearby or to a higher or lower mass-energy state.

Do you mean by "following the edge"? You're definitely going to expend energy moving along it, because if you don't you'll "fall in" rather than continue along it. This would also require a tremendous amount of energy. Do you propose that you'd be able go past the edge and move just inside along the surface and this would somehow have different attributes, possibly allowing you to gain energy that's being lost by matter outside? Once you pass the edge into the void, I'd assume that would not be moving through mass of infinite density, is that what you're talking about? If so, how would it differ from just outside the edge?

 

When the moon is in the seventh house,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Nothing magical about it. Here's an analogy I thought of while reading your reply Buffy. It's like circling the drain. It is possible that, like the klein bottle, it is not possible to accurately project the shape I have in mind onto into three dimensional volume.

 

An action, if I am not mistaken, is a change of state within the system.

 

Now I have difficulty expressing the percise concept as our language is not built to discuss such things naturally. in order to change one's position an infinite number of times, one must take infinite actions. This obviously is not the path of least action.

 

Take a sphere, and try hard as you might to imagine that the surface you see with your 3D perceiving eyes is both the inside and outside of the sphere. This takes you in the right direction.

 

I think the infinity comes from a mistake in interp. If the blackhole is assumed to be both the origin point and the end point then of course the distance is infinite, or indefinite. As for center of mass? Well I would suggest you see what I have to say about mass-energy and it's relationship to space-time in another thread titled Relative Quantum Charge Dynamics.

 

If I project a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional plain or multipul two dimensional plains I may get much of the information but I will lose information in the translation.

 

Now I realize my math is less than spectacular, but in my experience a zero, null, indefinite(NaN) or infinite all have meaning in that they indicate that the expression is lacking in some detail. When I see the infinite in the blackhole stuff my reasoning goes to why that infinite can not exist and how it would be corrected. Much in the way that the rest mass of a photon is classically zero, but there is a special case where the mass of a photon can be calculated using a different, more accurate, expression.

 

The change from E=mc^2 to E = nhf, where when n = 1 the expression becomes E = hf. I suspect the same thing of Blackholes.

 

What I mean is that these placeholder concepts (Zero, Null, Indefinite, Infinite) all indicate in my view incompleteness.

 

Now you know when you have a bubble? what makes the bubble spherical? Surface tension. Why would the rules that govern a bubble not govern the whole of the universe? If the universe is closed then what encloses it? I would say one thing. Matter. From that we move to the properties of Mass-Energy and the resulting Space-Time.

 

That would actually be everywhere! No matter where you start, you go in a "straight line" and you end up in the same place.....

 

I can think of a shape that this happens on or in. A sphere. You walk the surface of the planet and unless you can jump "out" of orbit you are stuck to walking the surface. Now the surface might be oddly constructed in a manner that I of current can't accurately describe but I assure you, there is a surface. It might be a "soft" field surface or an ephemeral Fermi sea (or fermi level?). I doubt it will be a "hard" boundry.

 

At a singularity space time curvature becomes infinite, so that would imply there is an infinite amount of space stuck down that hole

That is why I am saying that not only do we not have to consider the singularity besides as it indicates Incompleteness. It's not the at the singularity that I am concerned with, it is at the Event horizon.

 

An interesting thing about excluding the placeholder concepts from what exists is that what exists can make "holes" in itself which are outside the boundries of what exist. Not a rip, but a transformation of the underlying geometry.

 

I am reminded of a Rabbit I heard about in New York Times. I don't pretend to get the details of this, but I do catch the part about points and three dimensional sphers. A russian guy by the name of Grigori Perelman, Geometrization conjecture, Topology of Path, Poinecare conjecture.

 

The conjecture concerns a space that locally looks like ordinary three dimensional space but is finite in size and lacks any boundary (a closed 3-manifold). The conjecture claims that if such a space has the additional property that each loop in the space can be continuously tightened to a point (singularities are points are they not?), then it is just a three-dimensional sphere. An analogous result has been known in higher dimensions for some time.

 

This is more or less what I mean.

 

Also of interest.

Over-Rotating Black Holes, Godel Holography and the Hypertube

[sebbysteiny]

At a singularity space time curvature becomes infinite, so that would imply there is an infinite amount of space stuck down that hole

 

Not necessessarily. At a singularity, curvature does come infinite. But the actual size of the singularity is an infinitely thin shell. And the integral of an infinite large curviture summed over an infinitely small space can be finite.

 

But inside the black hole does seem to me to be outside our universe as it requires imaginary time and space which does not exist in our universe.

[Jay-qu]

I think you missunderstand me, not the singularity itself, but within a finite region containing a singularity, there will be an infinite amount of space.

 

"Theres no such thing as a naked singularity"

J

[InfiniteNow]

"Theres no such thing as a naked singularity"

J

Yes, but black holes have no hair... :)

[sebbysteiny]

I think you missunderstand me, not the singularity itself, but within a finite region containing a singularity, there will be an infinite amount of space.

 

I think I've understood you correctly.

 

But from my understanding, if singularity itself does not contain infinite space any finite region containing a singularity cannot have infinite space.

 

So I think the entire question boils down to whether the itegral of space evaluated over the point of the singularity is infinite.

[Jay-qu]

A singularity is a single point, how can that itself contain anything Approaching the singularity is what holds the infinite space, not the singularity itself.

 

Take the graph y = 1/(x^2) , intergrate that from -1 -> 1, you will get an infinite because of the 'singularity' at x=0. There is a finite distance between the two numbers -1 and 1 (that been 2) but integrated there is infinite 'space' in there.

[Qfwfq]

It's possible that he meant that although he didn't use quite the right terms.

 

Now, along a radial path at constant t, the Schwarzschild metric reduces to:

 

[math]ds^2=-(1-\frac{r_{\rm S}}{r})^{-1}dr^2[/math]

 

so the proper length is given by integrating [math]\norm(1-\frac{r_{\rm S}}{r})^{-\frac12}dr[/math] between the two values of r. For settling the dispute, an integral from 0 to [math]\norm\epsilon[/math], I wouldn't dive head into finding the exact primitive, it should be enough to consider the behaviour dominant in the limit.

:cup:

[IDMclean]

Just wanted to link these two together.

 

Science breakthrough of the year