Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Blackhole question

  1. #1 Blackhole question 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    I'm curious of the thinking on the composition of the matter inside a black hole. Does the gravity overcome the electric and/or strong nuclear forces collapsing atoms or even tearing the protons, neutrons and electrons down to a subatomic particle soup? Does all the mass remain inside the black hole and is simply crushed into a very dense particle soup or anyone have a good understanding here? Is there any thinking that the inside of a black hole in any way resembles matter after the big bang but absent the initial force the compelled the expansion? If a black hole contained enough matter, would it collapse below the size of the constituent sub atomic particles total volume? If all the matter in the universe found its way into one black hole, might the gravity collapse it into an infinitely small point not dissimilar to the beginning of the big bang?

    My bigger question is whether black holes are in any way the flip side of the big bang if the mass reaches a certain amount? Lets say a black hole contained so much matter its gravity would overcome whatever force holds particles in our universe such that they are forced into becoming energy which in turn somehow appears as a big bang in some other universe? I'm just curious and would like to hear from someone who understands the current thinking or has their own views?

    thanks for any thoughts or pointers to papers or other ideas on this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Blackhole question 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by pgtom
    Does the gravity overcome the electric and/or strong nuclear forces collapsing atoms or even tearing the protons, neutrons and electrons down to a subatomic particle soup?
    As far I I know, the sub atomic particles are indeed ripped apart, but only beyond the event horizon. Because at this point nothing can be seen or observed other than Hawking radiation and X-rays, it is only a theory. The sub atomic particles are broken down even more the closer to the singularity they get (the centre of the black hole). Eventually even quarks are ripped apart.

    Does all the mass remain inside the black hole and is simply crushed into a very dense particle soup or anyone have a good understanding here?
    I don't have a good understand but I don't think anybody does, but from what I've read everything that goes into a black hole (apart from the odd radiation that manages to escape) goes into the centre of the singularity, which is supposed to be pointlike and 0-dimensional. Basically nothing, yet still has the mass and energy of all that went into it.

    Is there any thinking that the inside of a black hole in any way resembles matter after the big bang but absent the initial force the compelled the expansion?
    I'm not too sure, but at the beginning of the universe at the big bang you had the superforce, so in a black holes this can be evident by what it does to particles, i.e new forms of radiation are caused, monoples of electromagnetism are created, immense amounts of energy etc.

    If a black hole contained enough matter, would it collapse below the size of the constituent sub atomic particles total volume?
    Apparently all the matter in a black hole is pointlike and occupies no dimension, as infinite comes into play. As I said eariler about the singularity.

    If all the matter in the universe found its way into one black hole, might the gravity collapse it into an infinitely small point not dissimilar to the beginning of the big bang?
    That is a brilliant thought! One could be so bold as to say that could explode and create an anti-universe . That really is a good idea, I would say its possible, black holes and the big bang are similar in nature.

    My bigger question is whether black holes are in any way the flip side of the big bang if the mass reaches a certain amount? Lets say a black hole contained so much matter its gravity would overcome whatever force holds particles in our universe such that they are forced into becoming energy which in turn somehow appears as a big bang in some other universe? I'm just curious and would like to hear from someone who understands the current thinking or has their own views?
    Looks like we are on the same page here . I believe such an event would seem likely. But if there is a multiverse, especially as some string theorists would like to believe, then maybe it would create one after all. But I'm not sure how much energy a black hole would need to absorb the entire cosmos. A lot I would assume.

    thanks for any thoughts or pointers to papers or other ideas on this?
    You're welcome. I will as one final pointer, link where I got the information from, you will without a shadow of a doubt see why I kept on putting 'apparently', and 'as far as I know' etc. Whats it called when people do that?, anyway the site is, yep, you guess it.....Wikipedia.

    Black holes.

    Supermassive Black holes.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    A black hole singularity is most often not a point. Stars spin and thus have a property called angular momentum. Angular momentum cannot be lost or destroyed. A point cannot exhibit rotation and cannot therefore have angular momentum. Roy Kerr realized this and solved Einsteinís field equations for a spinning singularity, now called a Kerr Ring Singularity. The mass of a spinning star collapses into a thin ring of energy with the diameter of the Planck scale and zero height, i.e., a space with zero volume.

    The idea of "white holes" that form other universes when the energy of a black hole creates some kind of wormhole, has never been proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    Singularity is very theoretical and has never been proven.

    There is a limit to compaction of matter?

    Some say Neutrons others say Quarks and others say Preon particles and even Nutrino compaction.

    I'd like to know how far it does compact to and if possible a link discussing such compaction.

    As for white holes, as we study black holes we notice the jets produced. These are the closest things you will get to a white hole. The amout of matter from jets, reforms galaxies.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    The entire point of a singularity is that once you get below a certain size, the attractive forces of gravity increase faster than the repulsive forces that try to keep the subatomic particles apart - which is why everything is expected to just keep shrinking into a dimensionless point/flat disk/whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Big Bang and Angular Momentum 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    A black hole singularity is most often not a point. Stars spin and thus have a property called angular momentum. Angular momentum cannot be lost or destroyed. A point cannot exhibit rotation and cannot therefore have angular momentum. Roy Kerr realized this and solved Einsteinís field equations for a spinning singularity, now called a Kerr Ring Singularity. The mass of a spinning star collapses into a thin ring of energy with the diameter of the Planck scale and zero height, i.e., a space with zero volume.

    Doesn't the conservation of angular momentum logic create problems for the Big Bang as well? If the Big Bang began as a true singularity (no physical dimensions as we know them), then no angular momentum could have existed existed at the initial instance of the Big Bang since a singularity cannot rotate. Most of the known stuff in the universe is rotating and therefore has angular momentum. Unless the net angular momentum of everything in the universe is zero, it seems the Big Bang theory must also have a problem by the argument.

    ramblings

    In order for the Big Bang to have actually begun as a true singularity at some initial moment, then the sum of all the angular momentum of all of the stuff in the universe must be zero.

    Stuff = everything that came into existence at the initial moment including all the known particles, energy of any form and dark stuff ( dark matter or energy ) or anything else we haven't encountered as yet.



    Stuff that also came into existence at the initial instant translated into angular momentum and the stuff is gone and but conserved in a different form.



    Stuff can enter or exit our universe by way of an apparent singularity but that singularity is only from our perspective at the moment of transfer but that is only because our perspective is limited and the lack angular momentum is a perspective problem and not real since an observer in another place might see something else ( I'm avoiding the term "another universe")

    thoughts? comments? criticisms?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Big Bang and Angular Momentum 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by pgtom
    Doesn't the conservation of angular momentum logic create problems for the Big Bang as well? If the Big Bang began as a true singularity (no physical dimensions as we know them), then no angular momentum could have existed existed at the initial instance of the Big Bang since a singularity cannot rotate. Most of the known stuff in the universe is rotating and therefore has angular momentum. Unless the net angular momentum of everything in the universe is zero, it seems the Big Bang theory must also have a problem by the argument.
    If you want to strictly follow conservation of angular momentum and you believe that the universe is a closed system, then yeah, you could conclude that the net angular momentum of the universe should be zero. This doesn't really have anything to do with the big bang; unless you want to propose that there's some magical source of "excess" angular momentum that has been introduced into the universe in violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum, it should presumably all sum to zero, no matter how or when the universe started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Its nice to talk of a singularity. But! since it cannot be proven and reality is a better topic.

    Why, do people want to see an origin?

    Is it a "MAN" thing?

    As for matter going in and out of the universe. Thats Movie stuff.

    We have the tools to observe the ongoings of star formation and galaxy evolution.
    There is no observations of singularities. We do notice a form of recycling and matter changing phases.

    We do notice compacted bodies such as Neutron stars and exotic stars and assume that the theoretical black hole exists without a singularity. What stops matter from compacting to the extreme. Is it Neutron repulsion or quark repulsion or is it that no two basic particles can occupy the same centre. These issues need to be resolved.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz


    'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ch...ws/07-139.html

    A black hole jet at the center of a galaxy strikes the edge of another galaxy.
    Image Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/ CfA/D.Evans et al.; Optical/UV: NASA/ STScI; Radio: NSF/VLA/CfA/D.Evans et al., STFC/JBO/MERLIN
    WASHINGTON - A powerful jet from a super massive black hole is blasting a nearby galaxy, according to new findings from NASA observatories. This never-before witnessed galactic violence may have a profound effect on planets in the jet's path and trigger a burst of star formation in its destructive wake.
    This indicates the power of these jets that able to go for thousands of light years and carry with it matter to start new stars and reform galaxies.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Black hole Big Bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    As the ostensible destination for all matter with no limit on its size/mass and the only other astronomical object to be associated with mathematical singularity, the black hole is a very likely candidate for the Big Bang. And here's why: The Big Bang is a finite material phenomenon in an ongoing, indefinitely immense, hierarchical universe, not the whole universe. Under this presumption some cosmic-scaled black hole could ostensibly go supernova equivalent and spew out some portion of itself into a surrounding context.

    If you are a Bayesian, you might imagine that since we've always discovered ever more tiny, ever more compression-resistant particles, that there are many more to go. If so, a black hole may well have some enormously compression resistant particle kernel core at its center. If we have a 10 trillion light-year wide black hole with a one light year wide kernel core that collapses down to the next smaller particle configuration, a gravity wave could ensue from the center of the core outward at the speed of light as mass free falls inward. A year later (or whatever relativistic lapse time is appropriate), we would have the outer skin of this kernel exposed to enormously reduced gravitational forces allowing some of the material perhaps to transition back up the particulate ladder and follow the wave outward as light or enormously energetic particles.

    Just a speculative stab, but whatever the Big Bang was, it was finite. The universe may well be infinite, but every physical phenomenon we ever observed turned out to be finite in extent. In all probability, so is the Big Bang. Which, of course, means that the cosmological principle is false.

    We base a great deal of the Big Bang on the cosmological principle. And it is indeed an excellent model by which to hash out the local behavior of the material universe across 14 billion years of time. But it is based on demonstrably limited data set in pursuit of a complete description of a universe that has always had more in store for us than our descriptions could convey. To attempt to contrive a complete and sufficient view of the universe, rather than presuming our models to be strictly local characterizations, is ill-advised in my view.

    Across 40 orders of spatial magnitude the material universe has proven to be uniformly hierarchical (little pieces make bigger pieces which make bigger pieces etc, etc), yet in all our cosmologies we humans reflexively terminate that hierarchy at the limits of our data (flat earth, crystal sphere, island universe, steady state, etc). Currently we choose to presume the the mere 2 orders of magnitude of homogeneous galactic clustering we can actually see at the limits of our view are sufficient to completely characterize a potentially infinite universe (cosmological principle). We do this even though we can easily find in excess of 14 orders of magnitude of homogeneity (water molecule in 10 cubic km of ocean) nested within the 40 orders of hierarchy we have already fully examined. To invest all our efforts in a model based on such a selective application of the data is poor science in my estimate.

    The Big Bang is an idealized model of how the universe could work if the material hierarchy did somehow stop at the level of galactic clustering. Like the 19th century "Island Universe" model of a Milky Way-centered universe, the Big Bang is a beautiful, comprehensive, ostensibly accurate model of how the universe would behave if the hierarchy did stop. But like every cosmology we ever devised, the limits we habitually place on the hierarchy have always proven to be false and the hierarchy has always persisted beyond them.

    The advantage to presuming an ongoing hierarchy is to better address the anomalous data in the current model. Influences from a greater context often show up as anomalous data in the current model (Al Sufi's nebula, Hubble's red shift). It is just as likely that the questions of dark matter, dark energy and curvature of the universe are related to the material and energetic effects of the surrounding hierarchical context rather than strictly local variable adjustments in the current model.

    Sure the Big Bang will be BIG, but it won't be "everything." There will always be more to the hierarchy than we can see from here, just as has always been the case. That's what the material and historical data both consistently indicate. If the cosmological principle is good science, then the hierarchical principle is better science.

    -Mike
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz


    'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ch...ws/07-139.html

    This indicates the power of these jets that able to go for thousands of light carry with it matter to start new stars and reform galaxies.
    Now THAT's and interesting notion. What if your spewing black hole was, say, 100 trillion light years wide? Could we be condensing in the plume?

    -Mike (black hole poop)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 My observation 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4
    I would hope that everyone would agree that if the great minds such as Isaac Newton had limited their thinking with words like "proven" "laws" "a MAN thing" etc... none of us would have the pleasure of sitting at our computers exchanging these ideas.

    The amazing progress made accumulating knowledge using the "Scientific Method" seems to have at least two very different ways of progressing. One involves assuming the existing "proven" "laws" must be correct and trying to extend them incrementally.

    Most scientists like to pride themselves and their approach on not being subject to the constraints of Dogma. Nothing is ever "proven" or is a "law" in the final sense. No idea is sacred and challenging everything is the key to real progress.

    The second is encouraging speculative, imaginative and often initially appearing silly hypothesis that look beyond the current state of what is "proven" or considered a 'law". Einstein did not show Newton was wrong, he showed that if the bounds are widened, what was believed a law no longer works. I bet Einstein's work was described as "magical" or a "MAN" thing by early readers. Its sad that on a Science Forum these words are used as I would expect them on a religious forum. If it wasn't for speculation and imagination and willingness to challenge the "proven" or be described as a "MAN" thing, science would be no better than religion.

    How about leaving these ways of talking to the religious forums and stand above that. When you hear an idea you believe is silly and want to shoot it down with this sort of talk, how about accepting that even the apparent silly often yields a breakthrough and try using that as the starting point of your response.

    The earlier comment which concludes in the following, is an example of this more open thinking.


    Sure the Big Bang will be BIG, but it won't be "everything." There will always be more to the hierarchy than we can see from here, just as has always been the case. That's what the material and historical data both consistently indicate. If the cosmological principle is good science, then the hierarchical principle is better science.
    I'm sure that some of you will appreciate my point while others will get angry. If you get angry, please look into your own motives before responding. I would hope we all realize its better science and better humanity to avoid the dogma like thinking. Imagination and speculation is good and can even be fun. Sometimes, maybe rarely, it opens a new door so please don't slam doors.

    It even reminds me of the comment made by the 911 committee. Whether you accept their conclusions or not, the idea "it was a failure of imagination" is a good summary and applies widely.... Even here.

    thanks for listening. Lets aspire to avoid dogma like talk and encourage imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Could you clarify for me where you think dogmatic thinking has been on display in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz


    Nice discussion above.

    ====================================

    Cuetek said:

    Now THAT's and interesting notion. What if your spewing black hole was, say, 100 trillion light years wide? Could we be condensing in the plume?
    Jets tend to reform galaxies. I have looked at images that show them to go for several million light years and take part in the reformation of galaxies within a cluster of galaxies.

    I do not think 100 trilion light years would work.

    The existing black holes in some of these cluster of galaxies are over 100 billion times the mass of our Sun and would form a gravity sink controlling the end flow of the jet.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •