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

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
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 ]
 
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.
'

Not past, out of. The Event Horizon Telescope press release of their black hole shadow image had one physicist describe it that the black hole gravity pulled space in so fast that photons trying to escape would be like a fish at a stream neck, they are pulled in.

The naive general relativity model says photons or other particles can't notice the event horizon, it is an integrated effect and not a local one, and that stuff would happen further in. But see "Firewalls" for a quantum effect that could happen just inside the event horizon [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) ].
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
729
841
1,760
General relativity says it is, and black holes are a demonstration. But already neutron stars compress matter so that atoms can't exist in their cores, as accelerator experiments of quark-gluon plasma agree with.
Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of Nature, just the thing is that, the rest of the three forces' fields of influence are not as huge as that of gravity, that is why gravity appears to be the most powerful one. That is proved the moment you take a powerful-enough magnet towards a pile of nails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Oct 23, 2019
30
14
535
To answer the OPs question though I would think the photon turns into Hawking radiation somehow eventually.
 
The region would act as a super fusion reactor creating new sub atomic particles ejected through its Negative and positive polar fields.
I think you are confusing two mass flows from the accretion disk, one into the black hole which disappears (and only show up as black hole mass increase), the other is the plasma that is fed into supermassive black hole jets by way of magnetic fields. The recent measurements of the accretion disk polarization effects by the Event Horizon Telescope seems to confirm this, and gets that about half the total mass flow goes into the black hole and at most half into the jets [ https://aasnova.org/2021/03/24/event-horizon-telescope-traces-magnetic-fields-around-a-black-hole/ ].

it means, so-called black holes can be in reality a part of the Cosmic Vacuum on different levels of fluctuations
It could mean that, if you can show the physics. But the empty vacuum of the universe is that vacuum state of its fields, not the objects in it.

I personally DO agree that things can, and probably did, occur in our universe at faster than light speed.
We can see from spectroscopy and the cosmic background spectra both that physics is the same and labor under the universal speed limit.

And the observed existence of black holes about 1 billion year after the hot big bang is another piece of evidence, of course - they have event horizons that labor under the same limit.
 
Last edited:
Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of Nature, just the thing is that, the rest of the three forces' fields of influence are not as huge as that of gravity, ...
Electromagnetism is the other long range force of the four.

But only gravity (and the short range Higgs force, to add the yet-to-be-observed 5th force that the Higgs field should make [ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-forces-of-nature/the-strength-of-the-known-forces/ ]) have one charge (mass) for technical reasons*.

The universe is neutral on average dur to positive and negative charges canceling, but gravity stacks up so that we can even have black holes.

*Stephen Weinberg managed to show why that is, but it is a highly technical paper. I think it is another discussion.
 
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.
The last 40ish years have seen cosmology move on from a big bang cosmology to an inflationary hot big bang cosmology [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=147a17b54153 ].

Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don't have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.
Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don't have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.
Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they're now nearly a full 40 years out of date.
So if you are refering to our local hot big bang, it has a beginning - from a process (the local end of slow roll inflation), not 'creation' - and you can argue for a heat death, but not an end of the universe since in a state of dominating vacuum energy it will expand forever.

That is akin to how inflation naturally expand space forever. So we may quibble about definitions here, but a larger multiverse will produce new universes indefinitely. And that type of inflation is promoted by the latest cosmic background observations.

Always has been. Always will be. Cyclic Universe.
a new cycle of the universe.
Cyclic universe models that will increase entropy forever doesn't match observations of ours which started with low entropy.

If you want a physical template for the possible inflationary multiverse it is perhaps one of a frustrated ground state.

Inflating volumes want to end inflation, and quantum fluctuations downhill will make them do so locally while fluctuations uphill will make volumes stay in inflation indefinitely. Hence a frustrated state.

And since those latter volumes expand faster they will make up the universe in a measure sense, a scale refactoring makes local universes to a Poisson process dot swarm of zero measure support. Hence an inflationary ground state.
 
Mar 5, 2021
6
1
15
I mean this is something im puzzled about too, but i dont think a black hole can fuse things. honestly if a singularity can be confirmed to exist then i mean anything could be possible. But if fusion did happen, wouldn’t the insane gravitational force just suck them into the singularity?
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
905
512
1,760
All,

Several posts were removed or edited for political content or for being off topic. In the future, report such content and don't respond to those posts.

Thank you,
COLGeek
 
Dec 20, 2020
2
0
10
Normal matter can't exist in inside a black hole, it has already collapsed past the point where fusion is possible. (a neutron star is essentially already a giant nucleus) The energy of the photon would be conserved as part of the total mass. This is a case where viewing light as an energy wave makes more sense than a particle.
 
Dec 9, 2020
1
0
10
"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 :)
"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 :)
Fundamentally, there is a maximum density as there is a constant called the Plank distance. If two particles, no matter what the attractive or repulsive forces are, exists within the Plank distance, then out understanding of space says that they are irrresolvable as separate particles. Unless you want to argue that a blask hole is one massive sub-atomic particle, then there is a maximum density where particles can be packed.

Practically, as aprticles spiral in to a black hole, they pick up angular velocity and therfore mass as their angular velocity approaches the speed of light. When their angular velocity reaches the spead of light, their mass becomes infinite and therefor they can not spiral in any deeper as that woeld require more than infinite energy.
 
Dec 2, 2019
28
15
1,535
There is a lot to consider in this question, and I'm not sure mankind's existence will ever be long enough to actually answer the question. However, it is fun to speculate.

We know that matter is ripped apart by the gravitational forces of a BH. We also know that as this happens tremendous amounts of energy are released. We also suspect that the friction of matter rubbing against each other produces a tremendous amount of heat producing the accretion disk that is visibly observable. Personally, I'm not sure if we are purely seeing fission reactions as atoms are torn apart, or if there are fusion reactions due to atoms crashing into each other at such incredible speeds. Perhaps both occur in the accretion disk at the same time. The fact that we can visually observe this means that some photons are escaping. This is probably similar to using a planets gravity to slingshot a spacecraft with increased speed and a different trajectory.

We also know that BH's emit enormous amounts of gamma radiation at their poles.

On a side note. ***I have often found it curious that so many hold the position that BH's don't emit light, but it is evident that they do when we observe the accretion disk and the polar jets of a BH.***

I have long suspected that BH's might be so massive that photons are actually flung from a BH at such great speed that they move faster than light. If this were in fact the case, then the likelihood that we could observe this happening using current scientific technology would be nil.

The next question in my mind to consider is exactly how much volume a BH actually possesses. How much of what we can't see is actually the BH itself and how much is the space between it and the accretion disk?

Perhaps the accretion disk and the polar jets are the result of photons being emitted at faster than light speed and they only become visible once they slow down enough to be observed. What makes them slow down is another question. One possibility is they collide with incoming matter as it falls into the BH.

I don't know the answer to your question, and I suspect no one actually does...

...but it was fun to ponder it.

Thank you for the workout.
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,768
1,508
5,060
As a pre-requisite, what is a black hole star? I don't know.

Cat :)
A failed neutron star! ;)

We used to hear more often “white dwarf star”. It fits the earlier definition of stars (points of celestial light), but they fail the modern definition requiring stable fusion.

So we say, “white dwarf” and we know they only look like stars. This too has significant baggage if pedantry is released upon it. Most likely they aren’t white but blueish-white. Just look at their temperatures.

But they are definitely dwarfs, but....the Sun is considered a dwarf and it’s a million times larger. And here’s a kicker - the Sun isn’t yellow, but white - a white dwarf!!?@&?! 😳

Now add the fact that we don’t call a neutron star a name that adequately removes the “star” - which it’s definitely not. Calling them a “neutron” sure is wrong, and they aren’t comprised solely of neutrons.

But a “black hole star”doesn’t meet the “star” criteria whether the old or new definition. Stars have color and black isn’t a color.

A would mention that white isn’t a color either, but the “mind is a terrible thing” and I think I’m wasting one now. 😀
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
1,768
1,508
5,060
Joel - We also know that BH's emit enormous amounts of gamma radiation at their poles.

On a side note. ***I have often found it curious that so many hold the position that BH's don't emit light, but it is evident that they do when we observe the accretion disk and the polar jets of a BH.***
Only if the region surrounding a BH is considered part of a BH, but this creates confusion, IMO. Nothing can escape a BH from within. [Hawking Radiation seems to take place but only on the “surface”.]

Hi-polar flows, high energy radiation, etc. is the result of matter going wild as it encounters the monster we call black holes.


The next question in my mind to consider is exactly how much volume a BH actually possesses. How much of what we can't see is actually the BH itself and how much is the space between it and the accretion disk?
. There is a simple equation you should find easily enough, but I’m on my phone, else I would seek it for you.

iPhone
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2019
30
8
535
The Universe/Nature does not have a time point of its origin. I don't think black holes exist. Assuming that they exist, then, among other questions, there should be indicated one type from amongst the four ones described by scientists, i.e.
- Non-rotating, charge neutral
- Non-rotating and charged
- Rotating, charge neutral
- Rotating and charged

More on the question of black holes:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMN6mWiVrQ

 
Jun 23, 2020
41
22
535
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.
And yes, absolutely .....the way our universe is expanding faster and faster now, and the ridiculous size of it....would require a lot more than one "big bang". Maybe inflation? But whatever.....the force that is sending galaxies farther and farther out is certainly not the result of one "big bang" 13.7 million years ago. I'm not even convinced there ever really was a "big bang". Maybe it was always just "inflation" of some gyrating quantum particles right from the get go. Why must we believe there was some solid ball of whatever then suddenly "big bang"? Just curious.
 
Oct 25, 2019
3
0
510
Not a puncture in space that leads anywhere, unless you get burped out into a stream on the other side? Likely a dense sphere and a collection of matter that divides and compresses equally around the surface? I think it might be a wicked dense ball bearing kind of thing, incapable of creating fusion like the sun?
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
729
841
1,760
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.
Faster than light Physics occurs even in the present-day Universe, remember the Hubble Constant?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
558
106
1,060
The only material existence to a blackhole in any and every universe may be its event horizon, possibly a ring like material entity of event horizon bounding a dimensionally deep gravitational wormhole like corridor out of whatever the particular universe. All blackhole holes may have exactly the same destination of singularity (just one very singular destination for all of them throughout all spaces and all times (the destination; the infinite Universe of Big Crunch.... or Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of a Cosmic All)). The irresistible force of the immovable object. Not only blackholes but all centers of gravity, all gravity wells, no matter how shallow or deep may be at the very least pointing, sort of cone like, to it even if not attaining it.

It keeps on being said that light can't escape the gravity of a blackhole. "Escape" may not be light's facing or direction of travel in a blackhole, that is, if light and energy, as we know light and energy to exist, will even exist there in such a powerful particle accelerator as the event horizon of a blackhole. I mean, the speed of light is 'c' to every observer and traveler anywhere and everywhere, but just for example does light energy itself really exist [at] 'c'? Does any form of energy, as such, actually exist [at] 'c'? Since light is also a (light) time frame (a stream or series of single-sided 2-dimensional time frames), a frozen frame of time (such is a decelerated frame of light as time rather than accelerated), a time stop, and from beginning to end in universes advancing in time actually a trip all the way backward in time to BB / Planck horizon the more the information picture fills and crowds, and collapses in dimensions' horizon ([back to] the horizon).

The infinite Universe of the Big Crunch Vortex (the Big Hole Vacuum), as I realize it to be, isn't in any way (in the way of energy regarding 'quantum mechanics') 'energetic' (again, it is the irresistible force of the immovable object.... ultimately decelerated [immovable] object). Energy, and energetic, doesn't enter the picture until the horizon of difference between infinite and finite: Between infinite Universe -- a binary 'naked singularity' (ultimately decelerative) -- and infinities of finite universes (ultimately accelerative).
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts