# Thread: Between Two Black Holes

1. Supposing we had two black holes of equal size, everything about them is symetrical, size, gravitational pull etc, their even horizons Just touch, they don't overlap, but there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between the two event horizons
Of course, intially the ball would be torn apart. untill we are left with just one atom, between the EH's

Now I imagine this atom would also be torn apart, electrons ripped apart and protons/neutrons separated. Eventually we would have one proton or neutron left (1st question, would anything always be left? or is it random based on the atoms position)

Second question, are the forces enough to tear the proton apart into all the different quarks and gluons

Now as far as I know, these are the smallest particles we know of.
So question number 3, assuming we have reached the smallest existing particle, there is just one smallest particle in existance, suspended between these two EH's

What happens now?
Is the particle just suspensed forever? Is it torn into a new, never before existed particle (half a quark). Or perhaps reduced to energy, stretched into ever longer wavelengths?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Booms
...there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between...
Do you see the logical inconsistency in your question?

4. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by Booms
...there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between...
Do you see the logical inconsistency in your question?
Also a fun fact, the two black holes would warp each others event horizons

5. Ignoring the other details, the point half way between two identical black holes, regardless of whether it is inside, outside or on the edge of the event horizon would be an unstable saddle point. A particle at precisely that point would feel no pull, but if it moved even slightly, and unless everything was at absolute zero it would, it would fall into one of the black holes. Depending on the positions of the event horizons, there may or may not be a chance of escape before that happens.

6. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by Booms
...there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between...
Do you see the logical inconsistency in your question?

*sigh*
put your hands together, the palms are against each other correct? they are also not overlapping. You can also lay a pencil across both hands at once

This is what I mean, The black holes are touching, but the ball is perfectly half in each

Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Ignoring the other details, the point half way between two identical black holes, regardless of whether it is inside, outside or on the edge of the event horizon would be an unstable saddle point. A particle at precisely that point would feel no pull, but if it moved even slightly, and unless everything was at absolute zero it would, it would fall into one of the black holes. Depending on the positions of the event horizons, there may or may not be a chance of escape before that happens.
Hmm I thought that might be the case, thanks

7. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by Booms
...there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between...
Do you see the logical inconsistency in your question?
Also a fun fact, the two black holes would warp each others event horizons
Yeah. Opposed gravitational fields cancel. At the location you're describing, (the location that ordinarily would have been the event horizon of the two black holes if they were not near each other), there would be no gravity at all. None. Now, if the object has a non-zero width, it's outer edges might be experiencing some gravity, and it might get torn apart.

The main problem I have with this scenario is.... wouldn't the two black holes attract each other? At the very least, they'd have to be orbiting each other in some kind of binary orbit, or the situation wouldn't last very long.

8. wouldn't the two black holes attract each other? At the very least, they'd have to be orbiting each other in some kind of binary orbit, or the situation wouldn't last very long.
first off, thank you for asking that question. the conventional answer is yes, if two black holes are near each other they will always form an extremely fast binary orbit. interestingly enough according to Michio Kaku when we collide with Andromeda our supermassive black holes must form such an orbit. they could not absorb each other if quantum physicists are right about the actual substance of a black hole, they claim that what lies within a black hole is actually a singularity that has no volume. if these physicists are right(i suspect otherwise and i'll explain why in a minute) then these singularities cannot be ripped appart because of the extremely strong gravitational force holding them together, and they could not collide because there is nothing to collide into. so even if they were aimed exactly and precisely at each other, they would form a binary orbit with nearly no distance between the singularites.

now i'd like to explain why i disagree. if this were the case, black holes could not consist of one singularity. when an established black hole pulls a particle through the event horizon, it swirls round and round the singularity faster and faster, and einstein says that if it gets too fast it will start gaining mass and slowing time rather than traveling faster. once it gets fast enough and heavy enough, this individual particle becomes itself a black hole and particle physicists say that it too should be a singularity.

this should happen to most if not all particles that enter a black hole, and it produces not just one singularity pulling particles into its event horizon, it produces singularities equal to the number of particles in the black hole all traveling in orbits around each other in the area that we describe as a singularity.

if one thinks through what would happen when another black hole collides with this black hole, one finds a different answer from what is currently suggested. if the singularities from these two black holes come close enough while the whole mass of each black hole orbits each other, the two black holes should actually envelope each other. because although each singularity has no volume, there is distance between these tiny singularities orbiting each other. this distance causes one side of the black hole A to experience more attraction to black hole B than the other side of black hole A.

9. If you imagine your ball and imagine a line perpendicular to where the event horizons touch. Anything left of the line will be pulled into one black hole and anything right will be pulled into the right. This will keep on happening over and over again until you are left with a singularity. What happens with the singularity, I don't know

10. [quote="saul"]

once it gets fast enough and heavy enough, this individual particle becomes itself a black hole and particle physicists say that it too should be a singularity.
No. This is one of those common popular beliefs among laymen that has no basis in fact. The truth is that Relativity dos not predict that such an object will collapse into a black hole. In fact, it says the contrary.

Remember, the increase in "mass" of the particle is frame dependent. In one frame it might have increased enormously, while in another only some, and in its own frame not at all. If the particles mass dos not increase in its own frame, it does not collapse into a black hole in its frame. And if it doesn't collapse into a black hole in its own frame, it cannot collapse into a black hole according to any other frame.

If it it did, it would violate the postulate that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frame.

For example, let's say that you have a mass at rest relative to an observer, and according to him, that mass is just on the verge of collapsing into a black hole. He now accelerates away from the black hole at close to the speed of light.

The masses speed relative to him increases, and so does its "mass". So for him, the mass crosses the threshold and, according to your argument, collapses into a black hole.

However, for an observer left behind at rest with respect to the mass, nothing has changed, and the mass has not collapsed.

The first observer now brakes to a rest with respect to the mass. If the mass had collapsed into a black hole according to him, it would still be a black hole. (Black Holes can't "un-collapse".) Thus we would have two observers in the same frame, one saying the object was a black hole, and the other saying it wasn't. We would have a contradiction.

The truth is that neither will see the object collapse into a black hole. In GR, the gravitation of a moving object doesn't work that way.

11. can two black holes collapse.?
will they form another BH? or they will cancel out?
what are the answers according to physics theories.

12. Originally Posted by saul

first off, thank you for asking that question. the conventional answer is yes, if two black holes are near each other they will always form an extremely fast binary orbit. interestingly enough according to Michio Kaku when we collide with Andromeda our supermassive black holes must form such an orbit. they could not absorb each other if quantum physicists are right about the actual substance of a black hole, they claim that what lies within a black hole is actually a singularity that has no volume. if these physicists are right(i suspect otherwise and i'll explain why in a minute) then these singularities cannot be ripped appart because of the extremely strong gravitational force holding them together, and they could not collide because there is nothing to collide into. so even if they were aimed exactly and precisely at each other, they would form a binary orbit with nearly no distance between the singularites.
This is incorrect also. Once inside the event horizon of a black hole, space-time is contorted to the point that time and space reverse roles. As a result, all world lines lead to the center of the black hole. IOW, every possible path an object takes once it passes inside the event horizon ends at the center of the BH. The singularities could not form a binary orbit because the the paths they would have to follow in order to orbit do not exist in the geometry of the interior of the event horizon.

13. thanks janus, i'm no expert on the physics involved at these levels as you can tell. it was an educated guess based on what i knew at the time. however what you're suggesting sounds like it means that there is infinate curvature of spacetime. such an infinity usually isn't accepted in physics, in fact so far as i've heard whenever they run into an infinity like that they usually try to sovle the equations another way.

14. 1st question, would anything always be left? or is it random based on the atoms position
Very unlikely, its a very relative question to ask anyway.

The black holes although very equal to each other in their perfection will still have very different physics and gravitational effects due to their own relative reference frames.

Not to mention the fact that the spacetime is already being twisted assuming that the black holes are twisting one another. There is no possible way to know what is happening for that atom. For one black hole it may go back in time, for the other it may be absorbed by the other totally, and for the atom it may just be frozen in time... mulitple realities that could occur (5th dimension).

You are asking a question that NO-ONE on this earth possibly has a theory for. Assuming that the black holes are vibrating spacetime at exactly the same frequency and by some measure of impossible odds are relatively equal the atom should not be pulled apart at all, depending on where the mass is resting and what charge/gluon or any other fundemental interactions are taking place.

Second question, are the forces enough to tear the proton apart into all the different quarks and gluons
Intense gravity yes, although the atoms may still hold together because the strong nuclear force is a very strong interacting force and gluons exhange a lot of binding strength of quarks within the atom.

In a black hole I would say its very hard for gluons to be nullified, causing all kinds of invariance to many laws of physics, the pauli exclusion principle could be violated with relation to the quarks, the strong nuclear force could occur CP violation (which is CP invariant in the ordinary universe).

With two black holes the conglomerate forces of gravity may well tear everything down to the very core of existence in this universe, something we have yet to observe.

What happens now?
Is the particle just suspensed forever? Is it torn into a new, never before existed particle (half a quark). Or perhaps reduced to energy, stretched into ever longer wavelengths?
When our physics and mathematics reach a threshold for infinite, we are missing something. When you can't go through a wall, you find a new dimension to pass it. You go over it. Like a mobius strip you could traverse eternity along one side, end up at the beginning again and still think you are in two dimensions, when really you use the 3rd dimension to explain what is happening.

All of creation has perhaps an infinite amount of dimensions. The 4th dimension in Einsteins time brought a revolution for science. It is time for a new revolution. The 5th dimension, the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity, and beyond.

Science today, is dead in the water, with dead headed scientists living chinese whispered dreams of scientists long dead, and each new generation of scientists become more and more closed minded.

There are a few pioneers and now more than ever does the world need pioneers in all works of life.

Its best to not be asking old men with tired eyes and shattered dreams, or young know it alls (like me) or textbook headed students questions they will never be able to answer. Create a theory to explain your own question and then apply mathematics to solidify it.

The only person who can answer such a theoretical question, is yourself.

Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by Booms
...there is no space in between (virtually impossible I know, but this is a theoretical question so there)

Now suppose we placed a ball at this point, perfectly between...
Do you see the logical inconsistency in your question?
And how logical and consisitent is quantum physics at the sub atomic level? :wink:

15. Thank you VERY much Quantime that was a very useful answer

Give me a decade and I'll get back to you with my answer :wink:

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement