Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: space regarding collapsing stars...

  1. #1 space regarding collapsing stars... 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    before a star dies/collapses it becomes a red giant, meaning it's x times bigger. then after it collapsed it's x times smaller with the same energy? i.e. black hole?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    It depends on the mass of the star. You have a question mark- but the question is unclear.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Also a lot of mass is blown away when the supernovae explodes. (That is what we are made of!)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    so not every star that dies becomes a red giant first, or your reply applied to the black hole? ... if so, what happens then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    a lot of mass that only = a fraction of the star?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so not every star that dies becomes a red giant first, or your reply applied to the black hole? ... if so, what happens then?
    No. A star the size of our sun will become a red giant, stay that way for a few million years or so and then shrink to a dwarf. Stars larger than the sun will end in supernova, and if the star was large enough so that sufficient matter remained after the outer layers are blown off, it will become a black hole.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    This is what happen:
    1) a normal star create fusion,
    2) this fusion create byproduct such as helium & also keep the star inflated,
    3) the star became fatter because of the byproducts,
    4) the star collapse due to its own gravitational pull (getting dense, depleted fusion reaction!),
    5) fat stuff get compressed down to quantum level,
    6) heinsenberg principle state that: anything compressed to more defined space will have higher random speed,
    7) sudden random speed occur! (quantum pressure emerge!),
    8) star explode crazily! (SUPERNOVA),
    9) excess fat is lost (iron, uranium, and all fat stuff is lost into deep space),
    10) remaining matter became tightly dense object: either became a neutron ball (still tightly packed to quantum tiny space) or a black hole (undefined packing space!!)

    Interesting stuff is this quantum pressure. It cause explosion rivalling fusion power.
    Last edited by msafwan; January 26th, 2013 at 03:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I think this is what happen:
    1) a star create fusion,
    2) this fusion create byproduct such as helium,
    3) the star became fatter because of this byproduct,
    4)the star collapse due to gravitational pull,
    5) fat stuff get compressed down to quantum level,
    6)heinsenberg principle state that: anything will more defined space (stuff which compressed to 1 location) has higher random speed,
    7)sudden random speed occur! (quantum pressure!),
    8) star explode crazily!,
    9) excess fat is lost (iron, uranium, and all fat stuff is lost!),
    10) left out matter became tightly dense object: either a neutron ball (still tightly packed to quantum tiny space) or a black hole (undefined packing space!!)
    Well... You started out doing pretty well...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    This is what happen:
    1) a normal star create fusion,
    2) this fusion create byproduct such as helium & also keep the star inflated,
    3) the star became fatter because of the byproducts,
    4) the star collapse due to its own gravitational pull (getting dense, depleted fusion reaction!),
    5) fat stuff get compressed down to quantum level,
    6) heinsenberg principle state that: anything compressed to more defined space will have higher random speed,
    7) sudden random speed occur! (quantum pressure emerge!),
    8) star explode crazily! (SUPERNOVA),
    9) excess fat is lost (iron, uranium, and all fat stuff is lost into deep space),
    10) remaining matter became tightly dense object: either became a neutron ball (still tightly packed to quantum tiny space) or a black hole (undefined packing space!!)

    Interesting stuff is this quantum pressure. It cause explosion rivaling fusion power.
    Degenerate matter is a very interesting topic. Personally I believe deeper levels of degeneracy take place on the other side of a BH event horizon. But that's pure speculation on my part and will probably remain unprovable for many years to come.

    Degenerate matter
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Degenerate matter in physics is a collection of free, non-interacting particles with a pressure and other physical characteristics determined by quantum mechanical effects. It is the counterpart of an ideal gas in classical mechanics. The degenerate state of matter (in the sense of deviant from an ideal gas) arises at extraordinarily high density (in compact stars) or at extremely low temperatures (in the lab). It occurs for matter particles such as electrons, neutrons, protons, and fermions in general and is referred to as electron-degenerate matter, neutron-degenerate matter, etc. In a mixture of particles, such as ions and electrons in white dwarfs or metals, the electrons may be degenerate, while the ions are not.

    Degenerate matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore laza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Serbia, Belgrade
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    This is what happen:
    1) a normal star create fusion,
    2) this fusion create byproduct such as helium & also keep the star inflated,
    3) the star became fatter because of the byproducts,
    4) the star collapse due to its own gravitational pull (getting dense, depleted fusion reaction!),
    5) fat stuff get compressed down to quantum level,
    6) heinsenberg principle state that: anything compressed to more defined space will have higher random speed,
    7) sudden random speed occur! (quantum pressure emerge!),
    8) star explode crazily! (SUPERNOVA),
    9) excess fat is lost (iron, uranium, and all fat stuff is lost into deep space),
    10) remaining matter became tightly dense object: either became a neutron ball (still tightly packed to quantum tiny space) or a black hole (undefined packing space!!)

    Interesting stuff is this quantum pressure. It cause explosion rivalling fusion power.
    haha that is not correct
    "There is grandeur in this view of life,from so simple beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    ok thanks, i just needed clarification regarding the space. but it also shows that black holes are a closed system as hawkins stated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Degenerate matter is a very interesting topic. Personally I believe deeper levels of degeneracy take place on the other side of a BH event horizon. But that's pure speculation on my part and will probably remain unprovable for many years to come.
    Interesting, I have a very similar understanding. To me a "black hole" is simply the highest form of degeneracy; what exactly that form is will depend on the fundamental nature of matter. Once such possibility would be Samir Mathur's "Fuzzball" model, which resolves many problems quite beautifully. Truth is, however, that at this point in time we simply don't know yet.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    maybe i misinterpreted the meaning of a closed system. but either way, wouldn't you end up with more space regarding the compressed one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,828
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    but it also shows that black holes are a closed system as hawkins stated.
    I doubt that he did state that, given that he proposed the existence of Hawking Radiation.
    Plus the FACT that Black Holes take in matter from around them is a certain indicator that they aren't "closed systems".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    maybe i misinterpreted the meaning of a closed system. but either way, wouldn't you end up with more space regarding the compressed one?
    I'm not sure what that means. Note that the radius of a black hole is proportional to its mass:
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Surely he doesn't mean that since the compressed star is taking up less space there must now be more space available?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Surely he doesn't mean that since the compressed star is taking up less space there must now be more space available?
    yes, that's what i meant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,828
    In which case the answer is "no".
    There'd be more room, but exactly the same amount of space.
    Matter occupies space - it doesn't displace it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In which case the answer is "no".
    There'd be more room, but exactly the same amount of space.
    Matter occupies space - it doesn't displace it.
    ya well room has the same meaning as space to me. if you have a football and compress it to the size of a pea, you're left with more room/space.

    so when a star becomes a black hole, even considering the amount of mass that gets blasted into space, proportional you'll have an area with a smaller radius (more room) but with the same density on average still.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,828
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    ya well room has the same meaning as space to me.
    Well that explains one error, at least.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    so my comment in #19 isn't correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so when a star becomes a black hole, even considering the amount of mass that gets blasted into space, proportional you'll have an area with a smaller radius (more room) but with the same density on average still.
    The radius of a black hole will be much smaller than the equivalent mass star. For example, the radius of a black hole with the same mass as the sun would be about 30km (while the radius of the sun is about 700,000km).

    The density of a black hole isn't really a meaningful measure. But the radius is proportional to mass, therefore the volume is proportional to mass3, therefore the average density is inversely proportional to the mass2.

    The average density of a solar mass black hole would be billions of times greater than the sun. But a supermassive black hole could have an average density similar to water (which is about the average density of our sun, I think).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,828
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so my comment in #19 isn't correct?
    Your comment #19 was clarified in my post #18.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The average density of a solar mass black hole would be billions of times greater than the sun. But a supermassive black hole could have an average density similar to water (which is about the average density of our sun, I think).
    I don't understand. Why is supermassive black hole has average density of water? Does this mean a sphere of water make a black hole? I don't get it, what is this average density everyone talking about???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I don't understand. Why is supermassive black hole has average density of water?
    Because a black hole event horizon has a radius (Schwarzschild radius) which is proportional to its mass: .

    From that you can calculate a volume (which will be proportional to mass cubed). But this is rather meaningless as the inside of the black hole is no longer part of our space-time and it isn't clear (to me) whether the concept of volume inside the event horizon makes any sense - what with time and spatial dimensions getting swapped and all).

    From that you can calculate a value called "density" which is proportional to mass / mass3; i.e. proportional to . But again, this is pretty meaningless. Our current best theory says that everything gets crushed to infinite density at the center.

    Does this mean a sphere of water make a black hole?
    Yes, if you had a drop of water with the mass of 100,000,000 suns then it would collapse under its own weight and form a black hole.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so when a star becomes a black hole, even considering the amount of mass that gets blasted into space, proportional you'll have an area with a smaller radius (more room) but with the same density on average still.
    The radius of a black hole will be much smaller than the equivalent mass star. For example, the radius of a black hole with the same mass as the sun would be about 30km (while the radius of the sun is about 700,000km).

    The density of a black hole isn't really a meaningful measure. But the radius is proportional to mass, therefore the volume is proportional to mass3, therefore the average density is inversely proportional to the mass2.

    The average density of a solar mass black hole would be billions of times greater than the sun. But a supermassive black hole could have an average density similar to water (which is about the average density of our sun, I think).

    i meant the the whole area, not only the area where the star has been. even though the density, where you now have the black hole, is higher with a smaller radius; than what the sun had before. the overall density of the whole area would still be the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    i meant the the whole area, not only the area where the star has been. even though the density, where you now have the black hole, is higher with a smaller radius; than what the sun had before. the overall density of the whole area would still be the same.
    Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. (But I assume you mean "volume" not "area")

    the overall density of the whole area would still be the same.

    Do you mean: if you take the volume of the original star and the mass of the black hole, then the (average) density will be the same as the original star?

    If so, roughly yes. Actually somewhat less, as a significant proportion of the mass of the star will have been blown away in the supernova explosion.

    Similarly, at a given distance form a black hole, the gravitational force of the black hole will be exactly the same as a star of the same mass. For example, if the sun suddenly became a black hole, it would make no difference to the orbit of the Earth (although it would get very cold and dark...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    i meant the the whole area, not only the area where the star has been. even though the density, where you now have the black hole, is higher with a smaller radius; than what the sun had before. the overall density of the whole area would still be the same.
    Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. (But I assume you mean "volume" not "area")

    the overall density of the whole area would still be the same.

    Do you mean: if you take the volume of the original star and the mass of the black hole, then the (average) density will be the same as the original star?

    If so, roughly yes. Actually somewhat less, as a significant proportion of the mass of the star will have been blown away in the supernova explosion.

    Similarly, at a given distance form a black hole, the gravitational force of the black hole will be exactly the same as a star of the same mass. For example, if the sun suddenly became a black hole, it would make no difference to the orbit of the Earth (although it would get very cold and dark...
    we mean the same thing.

    so when a star becomes a black hole, even considering the amount of mass that gets blasted into space, proportional you'll have an area with a smaller radius (more room) but with the same density on average still.
    with on average i meant, up to where the blown away mass of the exploded sun reached.

    if that mass got i.e. blasted 5 lys away from the sun, the average densite within that 5 lys radius is the same still. even though it changed drastically in the area of the former sun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if that mass got i.e. blasted 5 lys away from the sun, the average densite within that 5 lys radius is the same still. even though it changed drastically in the area of the former sun.
    No. If the mass is distributed over a VOLUME (*) of 5 light years radius then the density would be a tiny fraction of what it was before.

    (*) Write out one hundred times: I must not write "area" when I mean "volume".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    lol.

    no i mean the density in that 5 ly radius would be same before the explosion as after on average.

    I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume". I must not write "area" when I mean "volume"... to be continued
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    lol.

    no i mean the density in that 5 ly radius would be same before the explosion as after on average.
    Yes it would. Roughly: with the caveat that some of the mass will have been turned into energy (photons) and neutrinos. These will have been moving at the speed of light (very slightly slower for neutrinos) and so will be a long way outside the 5 light year radius. But this will be quite small percentage of the total mass.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    yes, ok, so now you have 30km radius black hole where a 700.000km radius sun was before. so the "room" in that "volume"will now get occupied by space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    yes, ok, so now you have 30km radius black hole where a 700.000km radius sun was before. so the "room" in that "volume"will now get occupied by space?
    You seem to be thinking of "space" as some sort of fluid that will rush to fill the gap left by matter when it is moved. There is no more or less "space" or "room" than before. (Although space-time around and inside the black hole will be more extremely curved than it was before.) Unless you are defining "room" as space not filled by matter...

    But extra credit for taking things a step at a time and making your ideas clear(er)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    yes, ok, so now you have 30km radius black hole where a 700.000km radius sun was before. so the "room" in that "volume"will now get occupied by space?
    You seem to be thinking of "space" as some sort of fluid that will rush to fill the gap left by matter when it is moved. There is no more or less "space" or "room" than before. (Although space-time around and inside the black hole will be more extremely curved than it was before.) Unless you are defining "room" as space not filled by matter...

    But extra credit for taking things a step at a time and making your ideas clear(er)
    ty

    but something has to be there then, i.e. a comet or asteroid that would have crashed into the sun, can now pass through that area?
    or is that "volume" the event horizon now? where it would still pull the comet/asteroid towards it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    but something has to be there then, i.e. a comet or asteroid that would have crashed into the sun, can now pass through that area? or is that "volume" the event horizon now? where it would still pull the comet/asteroid towards it?
    VOLUME!

    I'm still not quite sure what you are thinking. There is a fixed "amount" of space within your 5ly volume. You can calculate how much there is from the "schoolboy" equation [tex]\frac{4}{3} \pi r^3{/tex] (1). That does not change when a star collapses to a black hole (2). But less of it is filled with matter.


    (1) hope I got that right after the schoolboy comment ...
    (2) A fully accurate analysis using General Relativity might disagree with that. After all, the volume inside the black hole's event horizon is (arguably) no longer part of our universe.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    but something has to be there then, i.e. a comet or asteroid that would have crashed into the sun, can now pass through that area? or is that "volume" the event horizon now? where it would still pull the comet/asteroid towards it?
    VOLUME!

    I'm still not quite sure what you are thinking. There is a fixed "amount" of space within your 5ly volume. You can calculate how much there is from the "schoolboy" equation [tex]\frac{4}{3} \pi r^3{/tex] (1). That does not change when a star collapses to a black hole (2). But less of it is filled with matter.


    (1) hope I got that right after the schoolboy comment ...
    (2) A fully accurate analysis using General Relativity might disagree with that. After all, the volume inside the black hole's event horizon is (arguably) no longer part of our universe.

    no, i mean the sun, before becoming a black hole, had a 700.000km radius. now there's only a 30km radius blackhole, in that same "volume"

    if you were in a spaceship, you had to fly around the sun (the 700.000km radius). but now, with only a 30km radius black hole, you could travel in a straight line?

    matter/light/whatever has more freedom to move now, or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Space and room are not the same as has been pointed out to you. Space consists of (nominally) empty space and space with matter in it. Either way it is still space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Space and room are not the same as has been pointed out to you. Space consists of (nominally) empty space and space with matter in it. Either way it is still space.
    yes, and now that that huge sun got turned into a tiny black hole, i'll end up with more space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    no, i mean the sun, before becoming a black hole, had a 700.000km radius. now there's only a 30km radius blackhole, in that same "volume"
    But the volume is the same. Less of it is filled by the sun (now a black hole).

    if you were in a spaceship, you had to fly around the sun (the 700.000km radius). but now, with only a 30km radius black hole, you could travel in a straight line?
    As I say, the gravitational effect is the same. If you were orbiting the sun then you could continue to orbit the black hole at the same distance. But (and maybe this is what you are getting at) you could orbit the black hole at a distance where you would once have been deep inside the sun.

    Note that there is a distance near the black hole where you can no longer orbit (orbital velocity becomes greater than the sped of light).

    matter/light/whatever has more freedom to move now, or not?
    Yes, in the sense that you can go to places that were formerly full of sun-stuff. So there is more "empty space" (but no more space).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Space and room are not the same as has been pointed out to you. Space consists of (nominally) empty space and space with matter in it. Either way it is still space.
    yes, and now that that huge sun got turned into a tiny black hole, i'll end up with more space?
    No. In the first case you have a volume of space that we shall say is 50% star and 50% vacuum. (I'm ignoring radiation, magnetic fields, virtual particles, solar wind, etc). Let's say that volume of space is 2 x 10^18 cubic kilometres.

    Now the star collapses. That volume of space is occupied by 2% star and 98% vacuum, but the volume of that space remains 2 x 10^18 cubic kilometres. There is now more vacuum, but vacuum does not equal space. Room does not equal space.

    Please identify what is unclear in this explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    no, i mean the sun, before becoming a black hole, had a 700.000km radius. now there's only a 30km radius blackhole, in that same "volume"
    But the volume is the same. Less of it is filled by the sun (now a black hole).

    if you were in a spaceship, you had to fly around the sun (the 700.000km radius). but now, with only a 30km radius black hole, you could travel in a straight line?
    As I say, the gravitational effect is the same. If you were orbiting the sun then you could continue to orbit the black hole at the same distance. But (and maybe this is what you are getting at) you could orbit the black hole at a distance where you would once have been deep inside the sun.

    Note that there is a distance near the black hole where you can no longer orbit (orbital velocity becomes greater than the sped of light).

    matter/light/whatever has more freedom to move now, or not?
    Yes, in the sense that you can go to places that were formerly full of sun-stuff. So there is more "empty space" (but no more space).

    this is what get's me. i have more empty space, but not more space?

    i'm not saying or meaning, that the gained "empty space" is expansion of space. but i.e. if i replace an ant of a 2D surface(space) with a dust particle, ... OMG, now i see i have more "ROOM". ok, if i replace "space" with "ROOM", i got it right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Space and room are not the same as has been pointed out to you. Space consists of (nominally) empty space and space with matter in it. Either way it is still space.
    yes, and now that that huge sun got turned into a tiny black hole, i'll end up with more space?
    No. In the first case you have a volume of space that we shall say is 50% star and 50% vacuum. (I'm ignoring radiation, magnetic fields, virtual particles, solar wind, etc). Let's say that volume of space is 2 x 10^18 cubic kilometres.

    Now the star collapses. That volume of space is occupied by 2% star and 98% vacuum, but the volume of that space remains 2 x 10^18 cubic kilometres. There is now more vacuum, but vacuum does not equal space. Room does not equal space.

    Please identify what is unclear in this explanation.
    you're allowed to hammer a nail into my head, to give my brain more "SPACE", because the "ROOM" is too small for thoughts to travel through.

    i think i got it now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    OMG, now i see i have more "ROOM". ok, if i replace "space" with "ROOM", i got it right?
    I think that will do.

    But just to confuse you even more ... A Black Hole is a Waterfall of Space
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    OMG, now i see i have more "ROOM". ok, if i replace "space" with "ROOM", i got it right?
    I think that will do.

    But just to confuse you even more ... A Black Hole is a Waterfall of Space
    ok i haven't start reading, but looking at the picture, that was my thought all along. i don't know, if it went in the right direction; because off too less "ROOM", but because of density and energy being compressed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    ok, i get the outside of horizon = less than c, i also get the at horizon = c ... but then how does it get to = >c?

    if the fish at the horizon, no matter how hard it tries, can't move, how it changes to: moving, whether you like it or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    ok, i get the outside of horizon = less than c, i also get the at horizon = c ... but then how does it get to = >c?

    if the fish at the horizon, no matter how hard it tries, can't move, how it changes to: moving, whether you like it or not?
    nevermind, read it wrong ... again. i had the image of a fish swimming upstream against the flow and then wondering,what would stop him swimming downstream with the flow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    In this model (and remember it is just a model, there isn't actually any "space-stuff" falling in) space falls in at an accelerating rate, just like anything falling in a gravitational field.

    It continues to accelerate past the event horizon - note that it is not being gravitationally attracted by the event horizon but by all the mass concentrated at the centre of the black hole.

    The old cliché that "nothing can move faster than c" doesn't apply here because we are talking about "space" falling, not an object moving.

    The fish can never move faster than c (because it is an object) and so cannot swim "upstream" fast enough to avoid being taken to the center of the black hole.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    nevermind, read it wrong ... again. i had the image of a fish swimming upstream against the flow and then wondering,what would stop him swimming downstream with the flow.
    I'ts all very well saying "never mind" when I have already written a reply. Sigh.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    nevermind, read it wrong ... again. i had the image of a fish swimming upstream against the flow and then wondering,what would stop him swimming downstream with the flow.
    I'ts all very well saying "never mind" when I have already written a reply. Sigh.
    so space itself falls in? like, if i'd use a strong vaccum cleaner on the 2D ballon surface? from beneath the surface.

    lol sorry, pictured it wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    ok, i'm sorry, now i have more questions; but i need a break first. and that video is scary.
    just to imagine, that is the last thing you see, before your ears and toes become one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    if space itself falls in, it means that either the remaining matter of the sun became too heavy proportional to the surface it "sits" on OR spins/rotates so fast, that it takes the space/surface along?

    i.e. if i place a tablecloth over a table, where i have cut a hole in before. if i now drop a ball, being heavy enough, over that hole; it would fall and fall until it hits the ground, taking the tablecloth with it.
    OR
    it rotates so fast, that it actually twists space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    Strange, where are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Strange, where are you?
    I just had to pop through the event horizaon to see what was going on. Had a bit of a job getting back out again...

    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if space itself falls in, it means that either the remaining matter of the sun became too heavy proportional to the surface it "sits" on OR spins/rotates so fast, that it takes the space/surface along?

    i.e. if i place a tablecloth over a table, where i have cut a hole in before. if i now drop a ball, being heavy enough, over that hole; it would fall and fall until it hits the ground, taking the tablecloth with it.
    OR
    it rotates so fast, that it actually twists space?
    I'm not quite sure what you are asking. There is a critical radius for a given mass where, if the mass is entirely within that radius, it will form a black hole.

    Note that in this waterfall model, "space fall" into all masses. It is just that with a black hole it falls faster than c.

    There is a "twisting" effect as well. A rotating mass will "drag space" around with it. This is called frame dragging or the Einstein-Lense-Thirring Effect. It has been measured around Earth by a satellite called Gravity Probe B.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    wow, so i had it right.
    also, do black holes grow or shrink? oh and another thing, why isn't a black hole considered as part of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 8th, 2013, 06:37 PM
  2. How does sun an other stars look from space?
    By Neuntoter in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 27th, 2012, 05:09 PM
  3. Would a collapsing black hole have a positive charge?
    By kojax in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 21st, 2010, 07:09 PM
  4. [SPACE-STATION] Why Pictures Of Earth Never Show Stars.
    By newcastle in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 28th, 2008, 04:55 AM
  5. Space: STARS
    By kingwinner in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 21st, 2006, 05:04 PM
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
  •