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.
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.
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.
'
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..."
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.
To answer the OPs question though I would think the photon turns into Hawking radiation somehow eventually.
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 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.
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:
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/artic...s-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.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Thank you Torbjorn. You always have lots of good information. Keep up the good job!
Cat
Cat
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/starts...st-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=147a17b54153 ].
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.
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.
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?
Yeah what are they exactly? I think this conversation can’t move much further without that info.As a pre-requisite, what is a black hole star? I don't know.
Cat
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
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
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
There is a saying: "Nature abhors a vacuum". If there is any sense in this,I woud suggest the following addendum: "Nature abhors a singularity even more".
Cat
Cat
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.
"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."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
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.
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.
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.
A failed neutron star!As a pre-requisite, what is a black hole star? I don't know.
Cat
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.
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.
. 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:
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
- Non-rotating, charge neutral
- Non-rotating and charged
- Rotating, charge neutral
- Rotating and charged
More on the question of black holes:
Black Holes and Big Bangs Contradictory
The General Theory of Relativity
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com
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.
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..."
Faster than light Physics occurs even in the present-day Universe, remember the Hubble Constant?
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).
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:
I think there have been plenty of responses here but basically, black holes are generally thought to exist at the core of galaxies. Black holes are much smaller than the universe and though theoretically, a universe can be so small as to fit on a pinhead, I don't believe this to be what you're proposing. I believe you are confusing dark matter with black holes. There is no absolute proof as yet that dark matter exists though a recent paper proposed the existence of dark matter stars.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 179
-
-
SpaceX launches 20 Starlink satellites from California (photos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Blue Origin's powerful New Glenn rocket rises on the pad ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 9
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram