Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Black holes: infinite growth?

  1. #1 Black holes: infinite growth? 
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    I've just learned the very basics of Black Holes, and it left me with this question: a Black Hole becomes more massive (hence more 'gravitational' pull) the more matter it 'sucks up', does that mean a Black Hole keeps growing in mass forever? Is there any way in which a Black Hole can weaken or cease to exist?

    If Black Holes can't 'die' then the number of them should keep growing. I know that the pull of a Black Hole is only very large at a short distance to the Hole itself, but I suppose this short distance becomes larger when the Black Hole grows more massive. Could it be true that at some point there are so many Black Holes that "the universe" is ripped apart by them, or maybe even contracts?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    264
    not sure bout the specifics so wait for a more detailed answer but apparently there is this "hawking radiation" that emits from a black hole. As this radiation is emitted the hole shrinks and eventually disipates.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Black hole mass: x=0, y=0, z=0, ict=0

    Whatever made normal moving matter attract eachother (like for instance integral of timedilation) is not going to build up in a totally still mass, cause it has, except from integrals, zero value parameters. Things that don't do anything, can't do anything. Even empty space has higher parameters, and eventually the integrals of the parameters in black hole mass will even up with empty space (higgs particles if you wish), hence gravity will dissapear and the black hole will explode. And it will be big bang all over again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    as i understand BH, they form from very large stars (25 time ours) as the inner matter is used up by fusion (becomes hollow) and the resulting of all the rest falling inward to a small unit with a very high gravity. if this BH sucks in matter that matter should not contribute to the total gravity and likely disintegrates to dust or debris and moves on.

    the BH is thought to vaporize and the whole event is the end of a star with a short period as the BH. NASA has recorded one with three explosions in the compacting stage.

    some feel that all stars go thru the same process in the dying state, but that the mass of say our sun, would be less than a yard wide and vaporize rather quickly. in dying they do give off a large flair that would
    sterilize everything to some distance. a light year or less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Ok tnx for the answers :wink: Yea I guess a lot more happens in a BH than just the sucking up of matter.

    One follow up question though: If BH don't excert more 'pull' on their surrounding environment while they can take in a lot of matter, does that mean the amount of coherence so to speak (forces that keep it together) of the universe decreases when the number of BH's increases? The more matter is 'locked up' in a BH at any given time, the less matter is able to 'pull' at it's environment. Maybe BH's contribute to a 'Big Freeze' (infinite growth of the universe) rather then a new Big Bang?

    If that makes no sense, just tell me honoustly :wink: I'm trying to figure some things out using the limited understanding I have so far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Can one compare a black hole from in what the universe is expanding in (well actually nothing but is this nothingness the same as the one of a black hole)

    if this is true, is the universe being pulled out of each other because the non existence of space just like a black hole meaning that the universe is expanding in a black hole, theoretically.
    This doesn’t have to mean that the universe is expanding another universes black hole; it means that a black hole would actually mean missing indefinable space.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Can one compare a black hole from in what the universe is expanding in (well actually nothing but is this nothingness the same as the one of a black hole)

    if this is true, is the universe being pulled out of each other because the non existence of space just like a black hole meaning that the universe is expanding in a black hole, theoretically.
    This doesn’t have to mean that the universe is expanding another universes black hole; it means that a black hole would actually mean missing indefinable space.
    keep in mind BH are not well understood.

    no the BH is far from nothingness. nor should it have anything to do with universal expansion. i have seen some suggestions BH can eat up smaller ones, but this would be a stretch. the BH is thought to have a gravitational pull in a direction and the effect minimal in distance. like an invisible tube and can only attract whats in that area. ie matter outside the known and seen horizon is unaffected.

    expansion is explained in movements away from an original cause, not the gravity force of something in outer space. i think your trying to link the "big bang theory", to being an original black hole. a couple of opinions do suggest matter condensing to a point and size and an explosion event caused all to head out in different directions. since i can't accept BBT to start with, I'd guess the proponents of BBT would say no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Ok tnx for the answers :wink: Yea I guess a lot more happens in a BH than just the sucking up of matter.

    One follow up question though: If BH don't excert more 'pull' on their surrounding environment while they can take in a lot of matter, does that mean the amount of coherence so to speak (forces that keep it together) of the universe decreases when the number of BH's increases? The more matter is 'locked up' in a BH at any given time, the less matter is able to 'pull' at it's environment. Maybe BH's contribute to a 'Big Freeze' (infinite growth of the universe) rather then a new Big Bang?

    If that makes no sense, just tell me honoustly :wink: I'm trying to figure some things out using the limited understanding I have so far.
    remember the BH is part of the process a star goes through in death. the next step is evaporation. the suction created in the area when the process from star to BH may involve things in the area (planets, asteroids or even other solar systems in the area. (NASA has recorded three explosions in an area a BH was forming). but once formed its in the evaporation state and anything entering its pull will likely pass through as incinerated matter.
    all the matter to produce the BH or anything effected by its presence ends back up in the natural, birth to death process of systems. there will be no increase or decrease in what should be an absolute number of universal atoms.

    i look at the universe a natural cycle of events. at times more matter, gases, debris, dust and energy would mean more formations of solar systems, possibly galaxy and when there is less available material less such events. the process seen in primarily older well formed spiral galaxy and to older giant star generally centered with in these galaxy would seem a natural solution and a resulting of matter to someday be reborn in another form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    The black hole is not empty, but the mass in it is allmost totally still. Gravity is allmost max (since the mass has become so dense), so the masses inside allmost cannot move out of position and if they do they move very slowly. The masses within cannot have any vektor (allmost). Light in the black hole for instance, allmost cannot shatter like the waveparticles they are. If forces in normal particles need vektors, there are none. If for instance, the force that makes photons shatter is compareable to the electromagnetic force, there is no way that it can function. Only temporarily vektor independent forces functions, but if gravity is a force that don't need temporary vektors, then i still bet that it is dependent of the distance in time created by the vektors.

    Let me put it like this.
    When something is out of vektors,
    It is only distance that make a difference.
    Distance only have one sign or zero (gravity only attracts)
    There is a timedistance between empty space and mass


    My thesis:

    Black hole time ==> Empty space time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    to a point, thats true, but in the evaporation state, its solid state is diminishing and destroyed matter should pass on through. it is not suggested large junks of matter are pulled into BH (certainly nothing large enough to emit light). it is suggested matter is pulled apart and the degree is questionable. my feeling matter in the BH or passing through (pending on state) is very dense, w/o light and thus not visible. the invisible tube is that unit and the horizon (visible) a product of bounced matter, matter out of BH gravitational pull and light is from the remains from the original star, or from the final explosion or implosion.

    to really give an opinion, I'd like to see the original digital photos of what we see on NASA's site. I'd bet there is no defined separation between what is total black or with some light. all animations show perfect circles, this also not likely.

    if your suggesting a BH sits there for centuries gobbling up stars and all matter i could only disagree w/o comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Black holes: infinite growth? 
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    I've just learned the very basics of Black Holes, and it left me with this question: a Black Hole becomes more massive (hence more 'gravitational' pull) the more matter it 'sucks up', does that mean a Black Hole keeps growing in mass forever? Is there any way in which a Black Hole can weaken or cease to exist?

    If Black Holes can't 'die' then the number of them should keep growing. I know that the pull of a Black Hole is only very large at a short distance to the Hole itself, but I suppose this short distance becomes larger when the Black Hole grows more massive. Could it be true that at some point there are so many Black Holes that "the universe" is ripped apart by them, or maybe even contracts?
    Well that depends if gravitational waves exist in a sense, else it is possible for something to orbit a black hole indefinitely and never falls beyond the event horizon. However, if gravitational waves do exist then any orbit would slowly decay (as these waves carry away energy) and this immortal state would not be possible. However, a black hole is not some sort of cosmic vacuum cleaner - any object then away from the black hole faster then the escape velocity of that black hole would never be sucked into it.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Still, all mass eventually would end up in the black holes if they keep attracting. which they won't, right? What is the force hanging on if the universe could explode from a singularity yet gravity "cannot dissapear"?

    Can you explain that, I mean eventually it all comes down to logic. The only thing different between now and then is time not minding different position of objects. Time is the key, right? Gravity (m*s/t^2) is also different, caused by what if not time?

    So gravity is time dependent. Time distance dependent between empty space and mass cause what else is there to be distant from, the past? what's so special with the past? Empty space ain't that empty. Time distance is caused by speed, black hole mass is still. Case solved.

    Does anyone agree at all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    black holes are a little larger in size than our sun, with extreme gravity. i question what is seen as a result of gravity and what is the natural result of suction. also it is thought the process from giant star to neutron star to black hole to vaporization is a process, not necessarily an entity in itself, formed from a star. remember most starts implode and explode there remains in a comparative short time.

    there is an assumption the original mass 25 times our sun, must created this extreme gravity. BUT the inside stuff or core has burned up and the energy sent into space, very much as our sun does. this has some to do with mass and/or gravity. the process of imploding heavy out mass falling toward a center with much less mass will generate an extreme effect on anything in the area or as i suggest a massive suction. (not gravity). its also thought by some that at this time the light we see is gone. (from the time implosion starts to what ever the compacted state is. the horizon is the reverse of the implosion or outward movement of matter away from the core.

    a solar unit in order to be pulled into would disintegrate first and be pulled into as a stream of matter. the thought is if matter kept just going into or joined this unit has mass the formation of a new star would result. (Does not happen). keep in mind most galaxy core stars are in size about or more than the actual size of that BH unit. this matter hitting, going though or somehow dispersed is all with out observable light. the black is, to me a large amount of unseeable mass. (gravity having nothing to do with light).

    stars rotate around the core of a galaxy different than planets do stars. the natural rotation of other stars would be maintained. even in the density of inner galaxy stars your talking many light years apart. if in a rotation the star is effected for a period of time that it lost total speed it would give in to the gravitational pull and disintegrate. this is unlikely and would lose very little speed and continue on its way. the next time around the hole or debris of the hole gone. our sun rotates every 250 million years half way out from the core.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Still, all mass eventually would end up in the black holes if they keep attracting. which they won't, right?
    Um, no and no.

    What is the force hanging on if the universe could explode from a singularity yet gravity "cannot dissapear"?
    Huh?

    Can you explain that, I mean eventually it all comes down to logic. The only thing different between now and then is time not minding different position of objects. Time is the key, right? Gravity (m*s/t^2) is also different, caused by what if not time?
    um not really following you here.

    So gravity is time dependent. Time distance dependent between empty space and mass cause what else is there to be distant from, the past? what's so special with the past? Empty space ain't that empty. Time distance is caused by speed, black hole mass is still. Case solved.
    and here! What are you trying to say?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    black holes are a little larger in size than our sun, with extreme gravity. i question what is seen as a result of gravity and what is the natural result of suction. also it is thought the process from giant star to neutron star to black hole to vaporization is a process, not necessarily an entity in itself, formed from a star. remember most starts implode and explode there remains in a comparative short time.

    there is an assumption the original mass 25 times our sun, must created this extreme gravity. BUT the inside stuff or core has burned up and the energy sent into space, very much as our sun does. this has some to do with mass and/or gravity. the process of imploding heavy out mass falling toward a center with much less mass will generate an extreme effect on anything in the area or as i suggest a massive suction. (not gravity). its also thought by some that at this time the light we see is gone. (from the time implosion starts to what ever the compacted state is. the horizon is the reverse of the implosion or outward movement of matter away from the core.

    a solar unit in order to be pulled into would disintegrate first and be pulled into as a stream of matter. the thought is if matter kept just going into or joined this unit has mass the formation of a new star would result. (Does not happen). keep in mind most galaxy core stars are in size about or more than the actual size of that BH unit. this matter hitting, going though or somehow dispersed is all with out observable light. the black is, to me a large amount of unseeable mass. (gravity having nothing to do with light).

    stars rotate around the core of a galaxy different than planets do stars. the natural rotation of other stars would be maintained. even in the density of inner galaxy stars your talking many light years apart. if in a rotation the star is effected for a period of time that it lost total speed it would give in to the gravitational pull and disintegrate. this is unlikely and would lose very little speed and continue on its way. the next time around the hole or debris of the hole gone. our sun rotates every 250 million years half way out from the core.
    huh?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    The fact that gravity, if not caused by position in 4D or integral of position or integral of that, must be caused by change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum. And what I'm trying to say is that "change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum." does not exist in a black hole. So when it comes down to it, it is only position or higher integrals in 4D left. We know gravity depends on distance (/r^2), but it also depend on time distance in the exact same fashion, else one coordinate would not be the other alike.

    I don't know how weird this universe would have to be if it depended on a integral of position. You decide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    river_rat; your right, i am not articulate. i certainly tried to much into into one reply and used info from to many differing theroy.

    in general BH theory is mixed with assumptions. i don't even like the referance to hole, since there is never a hole. this was first an entrance to a worm hole in SF and has held on. simply put, BH is part of the death of a star, not even the last stage.

    i do have opinions contrary to the idea in general. one; this process to some degree is in all nature. a small star goes thru everything the very large units do and just to small to see. 2; there is a reason to think a unit of something is centralized in spiral galaxy to help in forming, to give some form of attraction (gravity) thru a sort of chain reaction. put another way; i think everything in the nature of matter, creates its own remidies. to much matter in the center of galaxy (the problem) creates a destrutive force of some kind to ease the problem. all this involves our visual conception of the light spectrum and very hard for a dummy like me to explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    The fact that gravity, if not caused by position in 4D or integral of position or integral of that, must be caused by change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum. And what I'm trying to say is that "change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum." does not exist in a black hole. So when it comes down to it, it is only position or higher integrals in 4D left. We know gravity depends on distance (/r^2), but it also depend on time distance in the exact same fashion, else one coordinate would not be the other alike.

    I don't know how weird this universe would have to be if it depended on a integral of position. You decide.
    Where do you get that time coordinates and space coordinates need to be treated the same in GR? They are different at the most fundamental level, the metric.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    river_rat; your right, i am not articulate. i certainly tried to much into into one reply and used info from to many differing theroy.

    in general BH theory is mixed with assumptions. i don't even like the referance to hole, since there is never a hole. this was first an entrance to a worm hole in SF and has held on. simply put, BH is part of the death of a star, not even the last stage.

    i do have opinions contrary to the idea in general. one; this process to some degree is in all nature. a small star goes thru everything the very large units do and just to small to see. 2; there is a reason to think a unit of something is centralized in spiral galaxy to help in forming, to give some form of attraction (gravity) thru a sort of chain reaction. put another way; i think everything in the nature of matter, creates its own remidies. to much matter in the center of galaxy (the problem) creates a destrutive force of some kind to ease the problem. all this involves our visual conception of the light spectrum and very hard for a dummy like me to explain.
    I think you will find the idea of a black hole is a lot older then modern science fiction writing (coming from the corpuscle theory of light of newton way back then actually). What is the final stage of the life cycle of a star?

    Im still not sure what you are getting at in the second part of your post.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    The fact that gravity, if not caused by position in 4D or integral of position or integral of that, must be caused by change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum. And what I'm trying to say is that "change in 4D or change in that, or in that ad infinitum." does not exist in a black hole. So when it comes down to it, it is only position or higher integrals in 4D left. We know gravity depends on distance (/r^2), but it also depend on time distance in the exact same fashion, else one coordinate would not be the other alike.

    I don't know how weird this universe would have to be if it depended on a integral of position. You decide.
    Where do you get that time coordinates and space coordinates need to be treated the same in GR? They are different at the most fundamental level, the metric.
    It is all distance, doesn't matter what you call the kind of distance, there is no golden distance, there is only distance.

    But I see that you agree with the rest, or atleast I hope that's what I see. I am thankfull.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    the final life of the neutron star is evaporation. this is also the final stage for small or large stars but are thought not to form BH's.

    think worm holes and BH were both conceived in theory and picked up by SF writers in the 30's. Roddenberry brought it to a peak in Star Trek in the 60's. NASA in the 90's gave character to BH's, but wormholes have been delegated to SF. my point was simply BH as thought today are not that of the original theory, the SF writers or the definitions of NASA and/or science of today. hole in space is no longer a thought and the entity is confused with that notion.

    the second part of that reply, involves conjecture and any point would be my opinion on BH in line with BHT may involve a cause. W/O BHT, may not be the result of giant star demise but something that causes those units to disintegrate.

    the predominate circulation of galaxy, our solar system and nature in general seems to be counter clockwise. understanding this is based on what view seen in galaxy. my thought is an internal force creates the spiral effect with a chain reaction style gravity and near contacts to other galaxy the cause, not as likely.
    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
  •