Black Holes

[xelasnave]

The way I understand it a black hole has an event horizon which is a region that has so much gravity..or space time is so distorted or bent that even light travelling at max speed as we understand it...cant leave.
However it seems inside we must see it this way..everything has collapsed to a very small point such that all matter that passes the event horizon is squashed down to a singularity..something small but maths way of saying things gets past when the sums may or may not work.
I am looking for corrections if my understanding is wrong.
But for me I find it difficult to accept a singularity and wonder if the mass inside could occupy a greater volume. .one that say ends a few kilometers below the event horizon.
Is this crazy or possible?
Alex

[Imme]

This is the bit I don't get Alex.....no matter how small things are compressed or whatever there must be some 'waste' product. Where does that go......millions of years of waste product no matter how small it is has to occupy some space.

If there is no waste, no leftover then I think that the discovery of black holes clearly shows that magic is real and Harry Potter is based on a series of true events.

[Atmos]

You've pretty much got it with our current understandings Alex. The event horizon is the point at which the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. This means that anything that approaches the event horizon doesn't so much fall into the blackness as much as slowly reddens and fades away. This happens more so with smaller black holes than super massive ones as the gravitational gradient is larger in smaller ones that bigger ones.

What is on the other side of the event horizon is still a guess. The most well accepted theory is that of a singularity which is a point in space of infinite density. Think of everything inside the event horizon being squashed being crushed into a volume smaller than a quark or an electron. A single point of infinite mass and density.

The problem is that we don't really know what happens on the other side of the event horizon so there is every chance that there is another kind of degenerate matter that we're not aware of that stops total collapse. White Dwarfs are held against collapse from electrons not willing to get too close. Once there is too much gravity they're pushed closer together and eventually it is the unwillingness of neutrons to get too close (Neutron Stars). Maybe there is a quark degenerate matter that? Who knows.

[gaseous]

I've never really understood why inside a black hole must be a "tiny" singularity. Infinitely dense, I don't have a problem with, but if you've gone from a planet-sized white dwarf or a city-sized neutron star to something like a black hole with more mass/density, and the accompanying gravitational pull means that the event horizon is the escape velocity of light, I don't see why the centre of a black hole is not just a super dense ball of a certain size depending on how much mass it starts with (and accumulates over time).

Or does "singularity" in this case just mean that matter is packed so tightly together that it's just an homogenous mass that can't be scientifically/physically separated into any discreet/quantifiable smaller pieces, but is not necessarily microscopic in size?

[Atmos]

A singularity is a point in space time that is infinitely small (possibly Plank Length) with infinite density. What stops a stellar core from collapsing further than a Neutron Star is neutron degeneracy (neutrons not wanting to get further packed together). When gravity takes over and the neutrons get forced together physics as we currently understand it has no way of stopping the collapse so in theory it could continue collapsing and never ever ever stop; i.e. a singularity.

[gaseous]

Thanks Colin, I'll just have to file this in my ever-increasing in-box of things I can't wrap my head around.

[doppler]

And then you look into the quantum world ....... https://www.consciouslifestylemag.com/everything-is-energy-illusion-reality/
Rick

[gaseous]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CloseGoodAmericanriverotter-small.gif

[RyanJones]

Can I just be extremely boring and suggest something more simple ? Every atom has a frequency. In order for said frequency to occur the atom must vibrate/move which requires it to have energy ? Hopefully I'm correct up to this point. What if a black hole is ( because of gravity ) so dense that the atoms can no longer move. For this to happen they must be stripped of their energy. As I understand it, black holes have jets etc of energy that shoot out perpendicular to the spiral around them..... Still hoping that bit is right. Could these jets be the energy that has been stripped from the atoms as they get consumed by the black hole ? As such is it possible that it's not that light cannot escape but simply that the atoms within no longer have energy to give off light. At that point, an atom that has no energy and who's protons and electrons are no longer moving effectively ceases to exist. Is it then this infinitely low area of energy ( none ) that is then filled by the energy and matter around it. Gravity being the pushing force of space rather than the attracting force we assume ?

[xelasnave]

An interesting observation.
What waste could be separated...wouldnt everything get crushed?
Alex

[rrussell1962]

Can I ask a silly question of people who know more than I do? I am, sort of, comfortable with the idea of collapsing to infinite density to form a singularity. But if time slows to zero at the event horizon then how quickly does matter collapse inside the event horizon - from the perspective of an observer outside the event horizon. From outside the event horizon does it ever collapse at all? Or does it collapse infinitely slowly? The obvious answer is we can't see inside the event horizon, but does Hawking radiation not suggest that we can get information from within the event horizon? Baffled and confused!

[xelasnave]

Thank you Colin.

Your approach I find much less dogmatic than many others who insist the only thing that can be found is an infinitely small singularity.

I sometimes think that such a position must be maintained to support the notion of the big bang simgularity.

I will never accept such a singularity as hypothisised by the big bang theory could grow to all that we can observe in our observable universe and presumably much much more in an instant. ..I know inflation has a time allocated but it is so short that saying inflation happened in an instant really hits the nail on its head.

I do think inflation is one of those ideas that has been unseasonably accepted for no other reason than it saved the big bang theory from rejection.

I doubt if most folk understand the proposition inflation requires that we accept.

All that is ..everything became what is in an instant ..all the stars all the galaxies absolutely everything rompressed to the size of a grapefruit and in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second grows to all there is..I mean think of that for a moment..culd you visualise such just for the Earth..I cant..I teally think math has led folk to think magic is possible if you can provide a formula..

The initial observation that the universe was expanding and therefore could be taken back to a point (the singularity) was absolutely incorrect and yet it was that observation that gave support to the cosmic egg notion..a notion of interest to the church for some years prior to our priest mate coming up with the big bang model...I expect because it was simply one more pagan idea available for theft and himted at cteation something near and dear to folk who believe in a creator.

From all I can see it seems like the idea was formed and then science was called upon for support.

Science should not be done that way.

And what a nice idea that appears to deal with creation but when pressed on that issue those who know what the theory says and does not say happily point out that the theory does not cover creation but only the evolution of the universe. We are told this is the start of time but no the theory does not mention creation ..sure take us back to a split second before this creation like event and say oh we cant comment upon that...and so folk then say the universe was created from nothing..what could you think at that point..mmm a creator for most... but the theory does not take us to describe nothing as a starting point..the theory does not say such.it takes us to a something..a hot dense something but clearly not to nothing..never mentioned. .wbere does the nothimg idea come in if not from a pre conception of a need for a cteation point and imdeed a creator. ..and yet even your top flight physicists discuss how it could come from nothing..quantum fluctuations etc..but the theory only takes us to a point of a hot dense something...not nothing..

Folk grab at nothing only because of a disposition to seeking a creation point.

For me as there was something I dont see how folk conclude that hot dense something could have been interpreted as coming from nothing.

But this is dangerous stuff to think about as it goes against what we are told to think.

And how strange that to even suggest an alternative cosmology would see a career in science destroyed. ..try presenting an alternative cosmology and see how your science career goes.

My view is the universe is eternal but that does not suit folk who need a creation event. ..

We observe the universe is flat which means it must be very very big and that means that this very very big universe had an extraordinary growth spurt...flat suggests infinite and infinite suggests eternal which must exclude a cteation point and a creator...so thats got 90% of the world off side but my approach is appealing to me because it seems more rational than believing everything appeared instantaneously.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Another thing☺
Energy is regarded as a somewhat magical thing..it seems to have no form or mass...surely at some point there must be something hideously tiny that could be regarded as physical...I think information must be carried via something and not just something that has no mass whatsoever...maybe even light has a small mass...so small that we may not be able to observe it but there must be something one could think and even if this something is what we call energy could not this energy be made up of something that at some level has a mass?
Lets see if we can take physics forward☺

Of course anyone discussing this and offers any view other than mainstream is a crank and a nutter...what a damnation to apply to folk who just like to think.
Alex

[E23]

OK, black holes fascinate me as well. I get the associated physics and the rather simple math, but it’s interesting that nobody including the physics community have really not got on top of the concept of a physical singularity, a body with no dimensions and gigantic mass. They are not really sure if the singularity really exists. This is because of the issue of quantum gravity, ie what happens to gravity at quantum distances. Anyway, my special curiosity is that most black holes supposed to rotate. Now, how does a body with no diameter, a point in space rotate. If it has no dimensions, a perfect point source, it will look exactly the same from any direction, how can it rotate. This rotation is the supposed source of extremely twisted magnetic field lines emanating from the single point location of the hole which also supposed to drive the high speed luminous material jets 100s of light years into space.
Anyone has a problem with the concept of black hole rotation?

Andras

[xelasnave]

Interesting observation and yoir approach seems reasonable.

It seems inconceivable that a singularity could be responsible I guess because it is small but of course it has the mass.

I find it easier to imagine something of considerable volume more capable but that is unsupported speculation.
Alex

[sil]

I really wish I had a good grasp of the math involved to explore some of these questions myself. Sure I can see how infinitely large/small are limits when you plot an equation, the TAN function for example goes up to infintity when graphed then mysteriously jumps to negative infinity as it passes through x=0. Graphs are a good way of demonstrating things but also misinforming. In physics and black holes the use of "infinity" I dont think is a measured /measurable value its just the point a graph is approaching the more you measure but never mathematically reaches.

Theres also this speed of light thingy, it applies to acceleration not velocity which are different things.

Then there's dark matter and dark energy. With all the observations people have made in the past few decades the values of the physical constants are still the same I was taught 30 yrs ago, the data never feeds back to refine values that were set from observational data in the first place. Which should them feed back into theoretical equations and may show some "missing" mass and energy is due to computational precision. Simply because the way we work is still the same making use of approximations rather than precise values to make the calculations easiest.
Also why does nobody ever seem to consider the missing energy etc as being sound and heat energy? Just because sound doesnt travel in a vacuum doesn't mean its not being generated constantly by all the billion of billions of active objects in the universe. I've never sat around a bonfire that roared in total silence as it burnt logs etc. So how much energy is being generated and "lost" as sound and heat by stars and collisions of all sorts.

The word relativity is also important, its just one point of view of a specific event. In practice multiple observations from different position and methods are required to build up a picture of what occurs in various frames of reference. eg colour, velocity, mass, shape, etc. I have my doubts about black holes and spaghettification as the energies involve are so extreme they effect space-time. Which is commonly accepted. So yes to an observer something approaching and entering the event horizon appears stretched. But that doent mean squat to the item approaching the event horizon. Maybe the difference in gravity for example of a person entering feet first between head and feet is great enough to rip them apart, but atoms are not connected and are full of empty space dont forget. Also dont forget that space and time the person is moving through are likewise being stretched the same amount. So the end result to the person experiencing it they may not notice anything occuring at all as all their sensory signal etc are being distorted the same way.

Its like sitting on the side of a road looking straight across and declaring all cars are streaky, stretched and transparent because you can see through them as they whiz past, even take photographic proof too if you like. the observation holds up. but at the moment you observe the car a person inside the car isnt feeling streaky or transparent. Theres so much analogy explanations out there now that people take them at face value as fact to declare all sorts of things. sounds religious to me.
So much of physics is tending to pseudo science and doesnt in practice do what they claim is the scientific method of developing an idea, making suitable observations, analysing the data etc. Watching a documentary on the Higg's boson it was horrifying to see all the work and expense to create this highly precise experiment to generate and elusive particle which would have a precise energy value of X but instead nothing beyond background noise level was found at X instead they had two peaks either side of X unexpectedly. So they declared one to be the Higgs and the other needing further explanation and set about adjusting their Higgs prediction equations to predict the observed value. Plus even if one of the observed particles is a higgs its being done so under abnormal conditions. A poor relative observation point again, and it in no way explains my gut which clearly has mass. What we call mass clearly exists everywhere we look and pick things up, weight may change though relative to gravity. So is it a fundamental part of physics or is it a result of something we havent yet thought about. How would the world around us look if we could control mass much like sound or light? I dont think we yet have found how to make or predict or measure an event from the point of view of the event itself but only from an external vantage point which may not provide an accurate impartial result.

Now for something completely different: A is for Apple, B is for Bottom, C is for Chalcopyrite.....

[xelasnave]

Great post Steve thank you for contributing.
An esential duty of a scientific model is to make testable predictions but I often wonder if such may introduce an aspect of "seeing" what we expect to see.
As I understand the proposition re gravity wave detection templates are used which it seems coming from a position of complete ignorance of what they are doing sounds dangerous☺ and I jump to an uninformed conclusion that the signals are made to fit in a preconstructed box☺.

What is needed is a quantum theory of gravity which I expect would determine the physicality of what should be found under the event horizon ... I cant imagine it to be a small dot but perhaps something just large and dense.

I think extrapolation may lead to incorrect conclusions.

If we observed the growth rate of a human up to the age of ten we would not extrapolate to conclude at age 50 a human will be sixty feet tall...it seems that extrapolating to conclude a black hole reaches a singularity may be done in ignorance of some factor that prevents collapse three feet below the event horizon..uet folk become so emphatic what must happen which stickes me as odd if you have no observation that supports where the equations leads us..also on that note extrapolating that an expanding universe in reverse may reach a point where it does not reduce to a very small point...
All so interesting.
Alex


Alex

[xelasnave]

And what if a black hole takes in dark energy? wouldnt that prevent a total collapse☺.
Alex

[sil]

I think it does and is part of what is the accepted doctrines. Purely because they can't be observed and of course people cling violently to their belief these conclusions are correct as their work relies on them.

Newtonian physics is simple and plenty to get man to the moon, Einstein I think merely expanded and overcomplicated things to try to encompass more base values.

Predictions though (ie formulae) should get us accurate ballparks and observations should give accurate data to refine the predictions and around they go refining each other to a level of precision you want.



Personally I don't believe the big bang was a singularity (just because you can run the equations back to a fun beach ball comparison or a sub atomic sized point). Likewise I dont believe the universe will end up a uniform nothingness with heat death reducing everything to absoute zero. Again just because you can take one equation to that point doesn't mean squat. I also dont believe the explanations of the increased expansion of the universe as they are always based on observations further out which means further back in time and so closer to the big bang and the closer you observe to that event the more acceleration you'd expect to see from a big bang. so these observation are to me what I'd expect and dont need dark energy. Its people observing one event using an inappropriate frame of reference. Ok I'm more likely to be wrong of course and its something I want to be able to explore myself.

I also look forward, Alex, to growing an extra 54 feet in the next three years. So thanks for reminding me :) Thouhg I don't look forward to shopping for a new bed to suit.

[xelasnave]

The critism levelled at the big bang pertained to the fact it suited religion...and although that crotism is rejected the story leads us to an assumption that thete was a creation point even though the theory points out that it only deals with the evolution of the Universe it takes us to a point where one can reasonably conclude the big bang event was creation.
The yheory seems to throw off problems with a fix..like inflation...how everything grew to all that is in an instant from as some have it a size of an atom for me is unimaginable...just think about what inflation asks us to accept..an instant growth in effect.

Then there is the failure to find the predicted lithium...I thought failure of a prediction caused a theory to be thrown out.
Thete was something years ago explaining how yhere was really litium but through a hypothisised process it was consumed and therefore the prediction was correct.
Personally I can only see the universe as eternal which means no point of creation something that was not in the mind of yhose who worked upon development of the theory early on.
The universe is supposed to be expanding but what if our interpretation is incorrect...
Anyways all most interesting.
Alex

[sil]

for me the big bang is just the size where gravity has pulled most of the matter together to the "point" (not a literal point in size, i'm using this i guess as the limit where density and energy create an explosion so everything is thrown outwards more like a big splat not something infintely dense the size of an atom but a blob maybe the size of a galaxy where its dense enough to start an explosion. Not everything came together smoothly in a linear fashion with uniform density everwhere and it all gets thrown out until it loses energy and stops as gravityno matter how weak from distance and over eons starts to draw it all to a cosmic blob again to repeat. the big bang really looks more like a lava lamp :)

inflation with infinite acceleration in growth etc i see more a circular argument, when you take one graph to a limit and get infinity and put that back into another equation you keep getting infinite things so an observation can go into on equation to get a figure that can go into others for measurable predictions etc is a sort of self test that the equations work. So it becomes a word argument when people explain with infitities its not fact . Proof: the equation break down when you use those values therefore the assumption that is a legitimately reachable value must be wrong.

I do think our interpretation of much is incorrect. We are educated (brainwashed) and raised (brainwashed) in a society structure ruled by (brainwashers). The old guard are not willing to sat "everything I ever learnt was wrong because it was done in a framework with limitations and outliers always suppressed. we are not born with any knowledge not even logic. Absoluetly everything is something we learn through experience like observation. Just because you can't explain the observation doesnt mean you throw it away. but we are taught to learn a certain way and test a certain way but if that approach has flaws then we can never reach all the answers. Too many people are Certain about things and think their (in)breeding and bank account proves it. The only hope is to remove the human race completely and let evolution rediscover intelligence. I don't see what makes us better for having houses cars and internet porn than say the ancient egyptians. it may have been unpleasant to folks at the time but look what they achieved. try build a pyramid today you'll be stopped before ever starting by government officials wanting all sorts of fees and paperwork then you'll have health and f safety squawking in one ear and environmentalists in the other. All the progress of our species and our civilization leads to bein unable to ever achieve a result.

[xelasnave]

Mmm pyramids..I like pyramids.
The great pyramid was built supposedly in 20 years..there are 2.5 million blocks so that suggests that the must have quarried and laid, I think 10 or more blocks an hour 24/7 for 20 years...seems inconceivable.
There are suggestions by alternative thinkers ( crack pots and cranks) that the pyramids wre built by an earlier civilization...I dont know but it is strange that the Egyptians did not record anything re their construction and yet left directions as to how to make bread.
Any alternative to mainstream is oppossed as mainstream has a certain view about Eygptian history which is relevant to religion and ertainly any thing different to the "accepted" story is never welcome.
I think parralleling big bang to an explosion is perhaps unhelpful given the period of inflation suggests an expansion wzy way gaster than any explosion...the time suggested is a zillionth of a zillio th of a zillionth of a second...at just 14 billion light year diameter and it must be greater than that for that size inflation is for any purpose instant.
Folk seem happy to accept such with nothing more than an equation and no observational evidence that I am aware of...an extridinary claim in my view that seems to be presented with out extrodinary evidence.
Big bang is the favoured model and there are good reasons but I think the inflation epoc must be wrong somehow..it seems absolutely impossible unless you resort to a magical creator entity...and I often think such may suit many folk so it is treated as unquestionable.
But I dont think a start or non start should be off limits ..yet it is it seems.
I wish I knew that my view is correct ... that the universe is eternal and there was never an absolute beginning or point of creation.

Alex