Can a Black Hole "star" commit fusion, would the photons collect inside the star, would the photons degrade into something else?

[Scott D. Deutsch]

Just a question...

 

[Catastrophe]

Not sure. I'll just go have a look.

 

[rabsal]

My theory is that our universe came from the collapse of a supermassive black hole from another universe, and our inflation/expansion is a "white hole" or repulsive/expanding black hole. So black holes have a maximum density they can absorb before collapsing and slipping into another spacetime and creating a new universe. That density could be calculated once we understand the density of dark energy or the "energy" of dark energy in our universe. It would have to be equivalent to "inflation" which is faster than light speed and whose density has exceeded that of space expansion vacuum energy....or somerhing like that....I believe this to be equivalent to the inverse/reciprocal energy of lights speed per volume of space, and we should find the graviton at that energy level.

 

[Catastrophe]

"So black holes have a maximum density they can absorb before collapsing and slipping into another spacetime and creating a new universe." My italics.

Do you have some details of your observations which confirm this?

I am not too keen on this mechanism for creating "universes".

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Black Hole "stars" can't exist, the question itself is pointless. But, hakuna matata, keep asking questions.

 

[IG2007]

There's a difference between a Black Hole and a so-called "Black Hole star." A Black Hole exists, but a Black Hole star does not.

 

[Catastrophe]

I wasn't sure whether the question meant 'star that had transformed to a black hole', something like a planetary nebula, but then the answer would still be 'no'.

But I agree, ask away . . . . . . . . . no problem.

Cat

 

[jackglewis]

My theory is that our universe came from the collapse of a supermassive black hole from another universe, and our inflation/expansion is a "white hole" or repulsive/expanding black hole. So black holes have a maximum density they can absorb before collapsing and slipping into another spacetime and creating a new universe. That density could be calculated once we understand the density of dark energy or the "energy" of dark energy in our universe. It would have to be equivalent to "inflation" which is faster than light speed and whose density has exceeded that of space expansion vacuum energy....or somerhing like that....I believe this to be equivalent to the inverse/reciprocal energy of lights speed per volume of space, and we should find the graviton at that energy level.

I have held that same theory since my current understanding of Astronomy and black hole discussions.

 

[enejjohhem]

No Gravity isn't the most powerful force, and I don't think that a black hole can create a Universe.
The Particles just stay as particles, black holes's gravity isn't really strong enough to destroy them. And I suspect that the singularity of a black hole is actually solid.

Like everything in this Universe black holes have their limits

 

[ThePatriotBeast]

I think a black hole star can commit fusion. I think the photons would collect and change into something else. Buuuuuut, I am not a space scientist, so I'm not sure.

 

[Logicalgal175]

I just have to go with what the cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists have said, and of course they are lot smarter than I am. That is that black holes are created as the result of the implosion of a star that was so powerful that it has left a tear or "hole" in the fabric of spacetime. The gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that not even light can go past its event horizon. So my answer is "no" a photon could not enter a black hole, because a photon is just a little packet of light.

 

[Mrhelton]

My theory is that our universe came from the collapse of a supermassive black hole from another universe, and our inflation/expansion is a "white hole" or repulsive/expanding black hole. So black holes have a maximum density they can absorb before collapsing and slipping into another spacetime and creating a new universe. That density could be calculated once we understand the density of dark energy or the "energy" of dark energy in our universe. It would have to be equivalent to "inflation" which is faster than light speed and whose density has exceeded that of space expansion vacuum energy....or somerhing like that....I believe this to be equivalent to the inverse/reciprocal energy of lights speed per volume of space, and we should find the graviton at that energy level.

I think our known universe requires more than just a supermassive black hole to get its start. There are an estimated 1 trillion galaxies in our known universe and each with around 200 billion stars. It is no doubt much bigger than this. This does not happen from just one big bang. It would take a feeding source. So, - to me, - we are far from any understanding of how our known universe got started.

 

[Helio]

Can a Black Hole "star" commit fusion.

Well, if it could, it would require something special.

A blackhole is formed when a very massive star begins the fusion process within its core beginning with hydrogen, until the core depletes hydrogen enough where it contracts and creates conditions for helium fusion. This same process continues up the elemental chain. Each time the atoms fuse their net mass is decreased slightly, which produces energy, typically gamma rays. [Of course, the gamma rays interact with matter (hot gas) that releases lower wavelength photons and more of them, thus we aren't stuck with getting toasted by gamma rays emitted from the star's photosphere.]

But, when the moment when the elements begin fuse into iron, the story gets violent. Fusion into iron absorbs energy (endothermic). This causes a chain reaction within the core that collapses it at incredible speeds causing a supernova (Type II). As the core collapses and density increases, gravity becomes incredibly strong. The mass of the core determines if gravity is balanced to form a white dwarf for less massive stars, a neutron star for more massive stars, or a black hole where gravity seems to be all powerful and possibly without any restraint even down to a singularity, but this is speculative.

So, to the question, fusion has ended to form a black hole.

But, blackholes make Jaws look like a guppy. They can shred any star passing near enough to it and pull it into itself. So what happens when all that matter gets squeezed more and more. I don't know the answer. Perhaps the physics will show it can fuse, which is my first guess, but perhaps not. What is clear is that there is now objective way known to find out, so the equations are all we have, as far as I understand.

... would the photons collect inside the star,

Yes, things are very hot as the BH forms, and that generates photons. They will swirl around but they aren't "fast enough" to escape because the escape velocity is greater than c. As a result we can't see directly a black hole, hence the term "black". But we can see dramatic events around them, which is how we first discovered them, though Schwarzschild predicted them when he produced the first solution to Einstein's GR equations. Of course, most didn't believe him.

... would the photons degrade into something else?

I think only when photons get absorbed by matter will they become something else, though there is some physics associated with photon-photon interaction. Given the extremes within a BH, perhaps this is a bigger deal, and I suspect it is. But they don't turn into butterflies, if you don't mind the hyperbole.

 

[VVet1968]

I just have to go with what the cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists have said, and of course they are lot smarter than I am. That is that black holes are created as the result of the implosion of a star that was so powerful that it has left a tear or "hole" in the fabric of spacetime. The gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that not even light can go past its event horizon. So my answer is "no" a photon could not enter a black hole, because a photon is just a little packet of light.

A photon can travel past the event horizon, but only one way. It can go in, but it cannot escape. The gravitational pull of the black hole is so powerful that anything inside the event horizon would have to be able to travel faster than the speed of light in order to escape. In fact, that is a rough definition of what the event horizon is. It isn't a tangible thing that must be penetrated, it's a point of no return determined by the mass and density of the black hole.

 

[socratus]

A black hole of one solar mass (M☉) might have
a temperature of only .0.00000006 Kelvin and
the supermassive black holes have much less temperature . . .
it means, so-called black holes can be in reality a part
of the Cosmic Vacuum on different levels of fluctuations

 

[Catastrophe]

Who actually knows anything about black holes?

Cat

 

[Logicalgal175]

I think our known universe requires more than just a supermassive black hole to get its start. There are an estimated 1 trillion galaxies in our known universe and each with around 200 billion stars. It is no doubt much bigger than this. This does not happen from just one big bang. It would take a feeding source. So, - to me, - we are far from any understanding of how our known universe got started.

I personally DO agree that things can, and probably did, occur in our universe at faster than light speed. I have always thought that. We currently limit all our calculations and formulas to the speed of light. But I think we simply don't know enough about the physics of outer space at this time. It's a whole different world out there with a different type of physics than what occurs here on Earth. That is why dark matter and dark energy are such a puzzle to us so far.

 

[Catastrophe]

"I personally DO agree that things can, and probably did, occur in our universe at faster than light speed. "

They do. But not material things.

Look at the Moon and then a furthest galaxy. Your thought has travelled perhaps billions of light years in a fraction of a second. But your feet are still stuck right here.

Cat

 

[Helio]

A black hole of one solar mass (M☉) might have
a temperature of only .0.00000006 Kelvin and
the supermassive black holes have much less temperature . . .

This, I assume, is only the "surface" temperature. Thus a more massive blackhole, with its larger diameter, will be cooler. A micro blackhole is so hot it evaporates very quickly, IIRC.

 

[kristianna276]

It has only been a short period of time that we have come to the realization of "Black Holes", we are only able to see the event horizon and are not still able to go any further. It is obvious that all galaxies contain a center core that all galactic matter rotates around, like that of a gigantic hurricane. Although, we know about what makes a hurricane and how it develops over time. We don't fully understand the mechanisms behind "Black Holes, and what is at the center of these regions of space. We have matter going in, and we have matter being expelled at high rates of speed. Does this matter being eaten by the "Black Holes" break down into sub atomic particles' similar to that which happens in a super collider? I would assume that it does given the conditions inside the "Black Hole". The region would act as a super fusion reactor creating new sub atomic particles ejected through its Negative and positive polar fields. I don't believe that it is the degradation of matter, but its churning into basic plasma in which all matter is based on. The center of the galaxy, a microcosm of the universe, is the engine that feeds the galaxy with new material for the birth of new stars and planets. The cycle of life created by recycled materials from the galactic core is responsible for the existence of all lives in the galaxy. One day soon we will have an understanding of the Astrophysics and Chemistry at play in the regions we call "Black Holes."

 

[Catastrophe]

It has only been a short period of time that we have come to the realization of "Black Holes", we are only able to see the event horizon and are not still able to go any further. It is obvious that all galaxies contain a center core that all galactic matter rotates around, like that of a gigantic hurricane. Although, we know about what makes a hurricane and how it develops over time. We don't fully understand the mechanisms behind "Black Holes, and what is at the center of these regions of space. We have matter going in, and we have matter being expelled at high rates of speed. Does this matter being eaten by the "Black Holes" break down into sub atomic particles' similar to that which happens in a super collider? I would assume that it does given the conditions inside the "Black Hole". The region would act as a super fusion reactor creating new sub atomic particles ejected through its Negative and positive polar fields. I don't believe that it is the degradation of matter, but its churning into basic plasma in which all matter is based on. The center of the galaxy, a microcosm of the universe, is the engine that feeds the galaxy with new material for the birth of new stars and planets. The cycle of life created by recycled materials from the galactic core is responsible for the existence of all lives in the galaxy. One day soon we will have an understanding of the Astrophysics and Chemistry at play in the regions we call "Black Holes."

As a pre-requisite, what is a black hole star? I don't know.

Cat

 

[Allen Hooker]

Our universe seems to have a beginning and ending. That being said there has to be an infinite number of universes similar to ours and there is no beginning and no end to the creation of these universes. How these universes are created is anyones guess. I have no clue what goes on inside a black hole.

 

[Catastrophe]

" How these universes are created is anyones guess."

This is a very anthropocentric point of view. Just because a jam sandwich or a motor car has a beginning and an end, there is no justification for extrapolating such a property to The Universe.

My "guess" is IT was not created. Always has been. Always will be. Cyclic Universe.

Feeble minded humans (that means us) should not judge the Universe by their back gardens.

Cat

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Just a question...

A black hole isn't a "star" but a general solution to Einsteins's equations for general relativity that has had a long history before it gave Eoger Penrose a shared Nobel Prize 2020 for showing that they mus exist [ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/ ].

Nobody knows what goes on inside the event horizon of black holes, but we already know that the next most dense objects of neutron stars do not produce fusion in their dense cores [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star ].

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

My theory is that our universe came from the collapse of a supermassive black hole from another universe, and our inflation/expansion is a "white hole"

White holes have no significant support among experts, and most have concluded they are impossible.

Despite the fact that such objects are permitted theoretically, they are not taken as seriously as black holes by physicists, since there would be no processes that would naturally lead to their formation; ... Additionally, it is predicted that such a white hole would be highly "unstable" in the sense that if any small amount of matter fell towards the horizon from the outside, this would prevent the white hole's explosion as seen by distant observers, with the matter emitted from the singularity never able to escape the white hole's gravitational radius.

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole ]