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

[IG2007]

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.

Black holes should not even exist, they are things with zero volume. So, basically, we have blackholes everywhere. But there you are, if it weren't for a black hole, I would not have been typing this.

 

[Usss]

I surely know that black hole's are spinning faster than g anyone human can imagine. Where do you think that black holes lead,yes to other universe's, you forget about magnetic fields that are so strong that they pull everything around as far as it's field is, some could be spinning faster than others, answer to the question. I believe yes photons can exist, think about tiny light particles in the black hole. Carbon is what we are made of and H2O, Star Dust .

 

[Logicalgal175]

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.

Thank you for your very compelling thoughts! I too have often thought that just because we humans cannot observe or measure energy or particles that are traveling at faster than light speed, doesn't mean that faster than light speed doesn't exist.

 

[Joel]

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

Helio, You state with certainty that nothing can escape a BH from within, but then acknowledge that Hawking Radiation can be observed on the surface. An assumption is being made in that statement that somehow the Hawking Radiation is only taking place on the surface. It completely ignores the possibility that a BH may be ejecting that radiation and then it is observable on the surface. I understand that the traditional viewpoint is that nothing can escape a BH, but as I pointed out we can visibly see the accretion disk and we can observe gamma radiation being ejected at its poles. It is only theoretical assertions that "matter going wild" due to the proximity of that matter to a BH that the possibility of a BH ejecting the matter is so generally rejected.

The mistake the scientific community has repeatedly made throughout history is to assume that without concrete evidence that "current" theory should not be challenged. Our understanding of BH's is in an embryonic stage and anyone who states otherwise will make the same mistake others have in the past.

I am also familiar with the formula for measuring the volume of a BH. Once again an assumption is made with the formula itself. It measures the distance from the singularity to the event horizon, but it assumes the location of the singularity and the space between it and the event horizon. In recent years scientist have reassessed previous estimations on the size of some BH's. Space.com covered one such BH, Cygnus X-1, in February of this year, and as a result of their reassessment decided that the BH actually was 50% larger than previously thought. This fact alone calls into question the very formula used to determine the volume.

Here's a question for you.

Can a BH that warps space and time be adequately measured by a formula that only works when space and time are not warped?

 

[Catastrophe]

"and though theoretically, a universe can be so small as to fit on a pinhead"

Pardon. Is that The Universe?

Cat

 

[tiape]

I have no experience or clue, for that matter of what causations are expressed in a black hole. There is a perspective, though, that I like from Josh who also claims to not know much.

"I'm not going to claim any real knowledge on the topic, or most of what I bring up, so feel free to correct me for any extremely rash or impossible aspects, but here it goes.
A black hole to me, seems like it's just the epitomy of nothing. There's something, then general space, and then a black hole. It appears to me that something to nothing is relatively possible, as at one point nothing came to be something, however I feel that the universe itself wouldn't allow such a flaw, as the universe seems quite perfect in its design.
One theory I've stumbled upon is a theory that all atoms have a negative and positive form of which they can swap between. Kind of a matter and anti-matter deal, but all atoms experience this, and that we live in the positive.
This kind of interacts with the idea of a black hole, a massive explosion of something that created energy to powers beyond
numbers we have words for (googlplex's), for a length of years we barely use the number for (billions). And it eventually explodes, and in the wake of such energy, a black hole is formed (If that's still what people believe). So a rediculous mass of positive energy goes out from a point in the universe, and in this point, it sucks in mass, everything, a perfect unescapable gravity pit.
Could it possibly be that after so much positive energy radiates from one point, it explodes, then begins sucking in all the positive energy that comes into it, to rebalance the rediculous amount of negative energy that would then be in the wake of such a thing?
I can kind of imagine it, more like an explosion under water (an implosion really). First it explodes, and then everything gets sucked in until it's at its natural point. Except this is on a massive (much bigger than any bomb we could ever make or imagine), yet scale so small (fills itself in to a sub-atomic level, if not to an electron level) it takes an unbelievably long time to go back to normal.
And even then that doesn't factor in to say that all this energy its taking in, isn't being vortex'd to another space or even time.
So, as a summary, I suppose what I'm concluding black holes to be, is an enormous sphere of negative. And as all things want to be neutral, it sucks in as much positive (the reality we live in) as possible, practically, indefinitely, all positive matter that goes near it to be sucked in without flaw, no possible escape. To anwser whether it has mass, I really don't know for sure, but from what I can tell, it has a Finite mass. But the time required for it to reach a neutral point is absolutely rediculous, seeing as how it would have to fill all that space flawlessly, to the absolute with the little bit of energy that it gets coming in from light, or small fragments of atoms.
But again, I have no real knowledge on the topic, its just my educated guess on what I've read and learned over a little while.

I feel that everything tries to reach a point of stability but, by virtue of its existence, it cannot. The journey continues on.

 

[XXXXXUSERXXXXX]

"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

Actually you're seeing light from the moon and light from the galaxy. In fact, what we see is light from dead objects in the case of light that's billions of years old. Think of the steady light we see before we see the super nova. The super nova happened billions of years ago. There are no planets there to visit, super luminal travel or not.

 

[XXXXXUSERXXXXX]

I have no experience or clue, for that matter of what causations are expressed in a black hole. There is a perspective, though, that I like from Josh who also claims to not know much.

"I'm not going to claim any real knowledge on the topic, or most of what I bring up, so feel free to correct me for any extremely rash or impossible aspects, but here it goes.
A black hole to me, seems like it's just the epitomy of nothing. There's something, then general space, and then a black hole. It appears to me that something to nothing is relatively possible, as at one point nothing came to be something, however I feel that the universe itself wouldn't allow such a flaw, as the universe seems quite perfect in its design.
One theory I've stumbled upon is a theory that all atoms have a negative and positive form of which they can swap between. Kind of a matter and anti-matter deal, but all atoms experience this, and that we live in the positive.
This kind of interacts with the idea of a black hole, a massive explosion of something that created energy to powers beyond
numbers we have words for (googlplex's), for a length of years we barely use the number for (billions). And it eventually explodes, and in the wake of such energy, a black hole is formed (If that's still what people believe). So a rediculous mass of positive energy goes out from a point in the universe, and in this point, it sucks in mass, everything, a perfect unescapable gravity pit.
Could it possibly be that after so much positive energy radiates from one point, it explodes, then begins sucking in all the positive energy that comes into it, to rebalance the rediculous amount of negative energy that would then be in the wake of such a thing?
I can kind of imagine it, more like an explosion under water (an implosion really). First it explodes, and then everything gets sucked in until it's at its natural point. Except this is on a massive (much bigger than any bomb we could ever make or imagine), yet scale so small (fills itself in to a sub-atomic level, if not to an electron level) it takes an unbelievably long time to go back to normal.
And even then that doesn't factor in to say that all this energy its taking in, isn't being vortex'd to another space or even time.
So, as a summary, I suppose what I'm concluding black holes to be, is an enormous sphere of negative. And as all things want to be neutral, it sucks in as much positive (the reality we live in) as possible, practically, indefinitely, all positive matter that goes near it to be sucked in without flaw, no possible escape. To anwser whether it has mass, I really don't know for sure, but from what I can tell, it has a Finite mass. But the time required for it to reach a neutral point is absolutely rediculous, seeing as how it would have to fill all that space flawlessly, to the absolute with the little bit of energy that it gets coming in from light, or small fragments of atoms.
But again, I have no real knowledge on the topic, its just my educated guess on what I've read and learned over a little while.

answered Dec 11 '12 at 20:00
Josh"

I feel that everything tries to reach a point of stability but, by virtue of its existence, it cannot. The journey continues on.

A black hole is not "nothing" because there is measurable mass, gravity waves, entangled particles. We are tiny biologicals that are here for a very small segment of time. We don't know. We invented "dark matter" and "dark energy" to fill the holes in our knowledge. I mean, the universe that we can observe is still EXPANDING. And we don't know why. It's interesting that we run into a singularity every time we follow an investigation far enough, whether stellar evolution, the "Big Bang", math, music or unified theory.

Reference:
Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas Hofstadter - 1979

 

[Helio]

Helio, You state with certainty that nothing can escape a BH from within, but then acknowledge that Hawking Radiation can be observed on the surface. An assumption is being made in that statement that somehow the Hawking Radiation is only taking place on the surface. It completely ignores the possibility that a BH may be ejecting that radiation and then it is observable on the surface.

I think you'll find that Hawking Radiation is all about what may or may not escape from a BH. The general idea is that when virtual particles pop in and out of spacetime, as is known, that they are in pairs. So as these pairs pop out, they separate with one falling into the BH and the other that just happens to form where escape velocity is just slightly less than c. This radiation is extremely weak for BHs, but not for short-lived micro blackholes, apparently.

I understand that the traditional viewpoint is that nothing can escape a BH, but as I pointed out we can visibly see the accretion disk and we can observe gamma radiation being ejected at its poles.

There is no evidence that I'm aware suggesting slightly that these events have any connection to inside the EH, other than the BH's gravity being the cause, of course.

It is only theoretical assertions that "matter going wild" due to the proximity of that matter to a BH that the possibility of a BH ejecting the matter is so generally rejected.

Correct, and all BH theories (not pseudoscientific theory) of any credibility support this view. What's at stake is GR itself. The first solution (1915, IIRC), as stated earlier, for Einstein's GR (also 1915) was that of a BH, oddly enough, where density reached a point where escape velocity was greater than c. Recall that 10 years earlier (1905) SR make it clear that nothing can be faster than c.

The mistake the scientific community has repeatedly made throughout history is to assume that without concrete evidence that "current" theory should not be challenged.

Yes, that certainly can and has happened. Einstein, a lowly patent clerk, was challenging Newton with his SR theory, so how did he become mainstream? It was a slow process, admittedly, but science is objective-based and once enough dots fell into place, especially where the prior theory became falsified (e.g. Mercury's precession anomaly), then more and more acceptance took place for Einstein.

Our understanding of BH's is in an embryonic stage and anyone who states otherwise will make the same mistake others have in the past.

No. Embryonic was in 1915 with Schwarzschild, when he predicted them and no one believed it possible. Today we have videos of stars moving at incredible speeds around a central point at the center of our galaxy; gravity waves that only make sense with BH mergers; X-rays from a region where an accretion disk is being pulled mysteriously off a star and heating up, then disappearing in the center; central zones of massive SN disappearing; neutron stars and pulsars forming from less massive stars, etc.

Any scientific theory that can explain all the events observed better than BH theories, might easily warrant a Nobel Prize.

In recent years scientist have reassessed previous estimations on the size of some BH's. Space.com covered one such BH, Cygnus X-1, in February of this year, and as a result of their reassessment decided that the BH actually was 50% larger than previously thought. This fact alone calls into question the very formula used to determine the volume.

Yes, it is a great excuse for astronomers to never cure their "aperture fever". Bigger and better will almost always produce, at least, better results. What's incredible to me isn't what astronomers can't see but how much they've learned from what little they can see.

Can a BH that warps space and time be adequately measured by a formula that only works when space and time are not warped?

Sure, GR produces incredibly accurate results for the spacetime metric outside of blackholes, though it certainly is different than around here, fortunately.

IIRC, the very first hint that Einstein was on the right trail with his Equivalence ides (gravity = acceleration) -- this is one element of GR but not all of it -- was that it explained the tiny redshift found in emitted light from the Sun (ie sunlight). The gravity at the Sun, as all gravity does, redshifts the light. Solar astronomers discovered this years before Einstein, but dismissed it as Doppler or bad measurement with weak instruments, etc. But more and more it was becoming reasonable to expect a better answer. Einstein knew then he was on to something, but kept it quiet. He also didn't boast about this GR solution for Mercury's orbit. Both of those things are somewhat retrodictive to his theory, which scientists will consider an ad hoc solution -- it's not too heard to produce a theory that makes predictions when you already know the answers.

The big test for Einstein was the angular shift in starlight as it passes near the Sun, a test only obtainable during a solar eclipse. This addressed the other area of his theory where light appears to slow and behaves as if refraction is taking place. His equations made a very definite angular deflection prediction that would either pass or fail his theory. The 1919 eclipse result is what finally made Einstein famous.

 

[vincenzosassone]

Black holes should not even exist, they are things with zero volume. So, basically, we have blackholes everywhere. But there you are, if it weren't for a black hole, I would not have been typing this.

Excuse me, I want to say something about it. Black Holes are strange, and for all the features they have, they surely should not exist, and here I agree with you. Anyways, Black Holes aren't things with "zero volume" at most their singularity is. Black Holes are made up of two parts: the singularity, a pure geometrical dot (adimensional) whose mass is a random value, even very high if you will; and then the event horizont, whose nature isn't very clear, or at least for me. Now you can think their singularity is infinitely dense, and this can be correct, maybe (we aren't very informed of Black Holes in general). The reality is that Black Holes aren't made by matter, matter simply disappeared in another universe/dimension, as you want, for this reason we don't know very well.
I have my own idea on it: once you pass through singularity, al the quarks who made you before you enter a Black Holes become bidimensional, yes, bidimensional. This is only a thought, even accepted if I'm not mistaken, and what's more, I can't prove it, I can't do anything to show wheather or not my idea is correct or not, that is something I believe to be more precise.

I mean, the universe that we can observe is still EXPANDING.

This is given by an unknown form of energy called Dark Energy. Of course this isn't something very precise but the reason why this happen is given by this force opposite to gravity.

 

[Helio]

Now you can think their singularity is infinitely dense, and this can be correct, maybe (we aren't very informed of Black Holes in general).

I wonder if there's not a paradox regarding the infinite density of a singularity. If one BH, say of mass 20 suns, has a singularity of infinite density, and another BH, say of 40 suns, also has infinite density, which infinite density is larger than the other infinite density? Wouldn't their EH's not also have infinite radii?

It's no surprise to hear that the equations of modern physics fails at singularities. The expression I like best is that "the wheels go flying off" the wagon.

The reality is that Black Holes aren't made by matter, matter simply disappeared in another universe/dimension, as you want, for this reason we don't know very well.

Science, IMO, should only loosely be understood to be about reality. I prefer to think of science as a conversation with nature and not that science is objective-based, where hard facts take precedence. There are zero hard facts about disappearing matter, especially when EHs are stable due to the very likely presence of matter.

I have my own idea on it: once you pass through singularity, al the quarks who made you before you enter a Black Holes become bidimensional, yes, bidimensional. This is only a thought, even accepted if I'm not mistaken, and what's more, I can't prove it, I can't do anything to show wheather or not my idea is correct or not, that is something I believe to be more precise.

Right, it is an idea. A friend once told me of a great idea I thought I had, "of all your ideas, that's one of them!" Without objective evidence even in principle, there is no science, only psuedoscience or metaphysics. This is the subjective world of supposition for even conjectures should include some objective evidence. Yet, I can't imagine any science not beginning where you are. Ideas and reason are what connect the dots of objective evidence.

 

[Joel]

A black hole is not "nothing" because there is measurable mass, gravity waves, entangled particles. We are tiny biologicals that are here for a very small segment of time. We don't know. We invented "dark matter" and "dark energy" to fill the holes in our knowledge. I mean, the universe that we can observe is still EXPANDING. And we don't know why. It's interesting that we run into a singularity every time we follow an investigation far enough, whether stellar evolution, the "Big Bang", math, music or unified theory.

Reference:
Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas Hofstadter - 1979

Is the singularity of music Led Zepplin's "Kashmir?"

 

[IG2007]

I have my own idea on it: once you pass through singularity, al the quarks who made you before you enter a Black Holes become bidimensional, yes, bidimensional. This is only a thought, even accepted if I'm not mistaken, and what's more, I can't prove it, I can't do anything to show wheather or not my idea is correct or not, that is something I believe to be more precise

A quark is three-dimensional, and geometrically speaking, if blackholes are "points", they can't have any dimension. A point does not have a dimension, mass or width.

 

[Joel]

I think you'll find that Hawking Radiation is all about what may or may not escape from a BH. The general idea is that when virtual particles pop in and out of spacetime, as is known, that they are in pairs. So as these pairs pop out, they separate with one falling into the BH and the other that just happens to form where escape velocity is just slightly less than c. This radiation is extremely weak for BHs, but not for short-lived micro blackholes, apparently.

There is no evidence that I'm aware suggesting slightly that these events have any connection to inside the EH, other than the BH's gravity being the cause, of course.

Correct, and all BH theories (not pseudoscientific theory) of any credibility support this view. What's at stake is GR itself. The first solution (1915, IIRC), as stated earlier, for Einstein's GR (also 1915) was that of a BH, oddly enough, where density reached a point where escape velocity was greater than c. Recall that 10 years earlier (1905) SR make it clear that nothing can be faster than c.

Yes, that certainly can and has happened. Einstein, a lowly patent clerk, was challenging Newton with his SR theory, so how did he become mainstream? It was a slow process, admittedly, but science is objective-based and once enough dots fell into place, especially where the prior theory became falsified (e.g. Mercury's precession anomaly), then more and more acceptance took place for Einstein.

No. Embryonic was in 1915 with Schwarzschild, when he predicted them and no one believed it possible. Today we have videos of stars moving at incredible speeds around a central point at the center of our galaxy; gravity waves that only make sense with BH mergers; X-rays from a region where an accretion disk is being pulled mysteriously off a star and heating up, then disappearing in the center; central zones of massive SN disappearing; neutron stars and pulsars forming from less massive stars, etc.

Any scientific theory that can explain all the events observed better than BH theories, might easily warrant a Nobel Prize.

Yes, it is a great excuse for astronomers to never cure their "aperture fever". Bigger and better will almost always produce, at least, better results. What's incredible to me isn't what astronomers can't see but how much they've learned from what little they can see.

Sure, GR produces incredibly accurate results for the spacetime metric outside of blackholes, though it certainly is different than around here, fortunately.

IIRC, the very first hint that Einstein was on the right trail with his Equivalence ides (gravity = acceleration) -- this is one element of GR but not all of it -- was that it explained the tiny redshift found in emitted light from the Sun (ie sunlight). The gravity at the Sun, as all gravity does, redshifts the light. Solar astronomers discovered this years before Einstein, but dismissed it as Doppler or bad measurement with weak instruments, etc. But more and more it was becoming reasonable to expect a better answer. Einstein knew then he was on to something, but kept it quiet. He also didn't boast about this GR solution for Mercury's orbit. Both of those things are somewhat retrodictive to his theory, which scientists will consider an ad hoc solution -- it's not too heard to produce a theory that makes predictions when you already know the answers.

The big test for Einstein was the angular shift in starlight as it passes near the Sun, a test only obtainable during a solar eclipse. This addressed the other area of his theory where light appears to slow and behaves as if refraction is taking place. His equations made a very definite angular deflection prediction that would either pass or fail his theory. The 1919 eclipse result is what finally made Einstein famous.

Helio, I understand your continued reliance on formulaic solutions. They produce results to questions that mathematicians like to believe themselves capable of solving. However, the scientific and mathematical communities are still applying universal constants to objects that distort those constants in manners we have yet to fully fathom since our inability to observe how these constants are affected is beyond our capability. ALMOST EVERYTHING we THINK we know about BH's is based on these constants that most certainly are altered beyond our ability to detect since we are unable to observe beyond the event horizon.

Unfortunately, I don't understand your belief that our understanding of BH's have progressed beyond the embryonic stage. Every BH we observe is much older than humanity. We have yet to see one form in our observations. BH's are likely billions of years old, and since they are such a great distance from us any light we detect in the vicinity of these BH's has likely taken at least 1000 years to arrive. Although Karl Schwarzschild postulated their existence in 1916, the first one wasn't actually discovered until 1964. That BH was Cygnus X-1, the afore mentioned BH that scientist have just recently stated was larger than first believed, so I disagree (respectfully) with your assertions that we are beyond our embryonic understanding of BH's.

Yes, we believe we understand more, and perhaps we do. However, much of that understanding is based upon mathematical constants that are most assuredly perverted by the massive energies associated with BH's, and therefore, most likely, do not apply...as much as we would like them to.

 

[Helio]

Yes, we believe we understand more, and perhaps we do. However, much of that understanding is based upon mathematical constants that are most assuredly perverted by the massive energies associated with BH's, and therefore, most likely, do not apply...as much as we would like them to.

I would agree that BH's are enigmatic, but we can differ on the level of science that helps us understand their behavior. GR is more than "mathematical constants" just as a kitchen is more than a spatula and silverware. Yes, it was 1916 (thanks) for Schwarzschild's GR solution for BHs, so they were very enigmatic until things became more objective-based beginning with Cygnus X-1. The funding to allow astronomers to look for orbiting stars around the SMBH at center of the MW happened because the evidence and understanding is adequate enough to have reasonable expectations that the efforts would be fruitful.

Certainly the interior of a BH is very enigmatic, which is a region that observations cannot exist by definition, but the regions around them aren't that defiant to physicists. LIGO knew what to expect in GWs (Gravity Waves), which is a result of post-embryonic understandings.

 

[Joel]

I would agree that BH's are enigmatic, but we can differ on the level of science that helps us understand their behavior. GR is more than "mathematical constants" just as a kitchen is more than a spatula and silverware. Yes, it was 1916 (thanks) for Schwarzschild's GR solution for BHs, so they were very enigmatic until things became more objective-based beginning with Cygnus X-1. The funding to allow astronomers to look for orbiting stars around the SMBH at center of the MW happened because the evidence and understanding is adequate enough to have reasonable expectations that the efforts would be fruitful.

Certainly the interior of a BH is very enigmatic, which is a region that observations cannot exist by definition, but the regions around them aren't that defiant to physicists. LIGO knew what to expect in GWs (Gravity Waves), which is a result of post-embryonic understandings.

Helio, You are assuming that the "Kitchen" actually contains a "Spatula and Silverware." My point is that your "Kitchen" is no longer in a restaurant, but instead has been moved to the bottom of the Marianas Trench where "Spatulas and Silverware" are no longer applicable because the pressure of the Pacific Ocean has destroyed your "Kitchen" and rendered the use of utensils in the restaurant pointless.

Let's look at Einstein's thoughts about light.

What makes the speed of light constant?

The answer to that of course is light passing through a vacuum. We have yet to determine how much mass is actually being sucked into a BH at any given moment because we are unable to see all matter or detect all matter from, in the case of Cygnus X-1, 1000 light years away. We don't know the state of matter between the singularity and the event horizon or it's density. I'm sure you can quote some mathematical formula that predicts state and density, but since we can't confirm theoretical math with direct observations of what occurs beyond the event horizon it is impossible to confirm these theories.

What we do know is that given enough matter in a defined space vacuums don't exist. Since a BH is always sucking matter in, it stands to reason that at some point matter would begin to affect photons. This would seem to lend itself to the idea that nothing escapes a BH, but since we can physically observe the accretion disk, and especially the gamma jets streaming from polar regions of BH's, and since we know that energy can be gained by an object in motion from another object in motion, then I don't think it's impossible for a BH to transfer enough energy to photons for some to be ejected at speeds faster than light.

Helio, I just wanted to say on a side note that I have really enjoyed this conversation with you. It is a far cry from the turmoil often associated with online discussions on more populated formats. Thank you.

 

[Helio]

You are assuming that the "Kitchen" actually contains a "Spatula and Silverware." My point is that your "Kitchen" is no longer in a restaurant, but instead has been moved to the bottom of the Marianas Trench where "Spatulas and Silverware" are no longer applicable because the pressure of the Pacific Ocean has destroyed your "Kitchen" and rendered the use of utensils in the restaurant pointless.

I hope this isn’t your true view of GR. If so, you might check-out how many decimal places GR has been taken, and without a hitch.

 

[Joel]

I hope this isn’t your true view of GR. If so, you might check-out how many decimal places GR has been taken, and without a hitch.

LOL, No, it is not my full view of GR. I just went along with your over simplification, for the sake of the discussion. I did amend my last comment, and added some additional thoughts. You might want to check out the edited version.

 

[tiape]

In my post, what also was said besides BH being nothing is "So, as a summary, I suppose what I'm concluding black holes to be, is an enormous sphere of negative "

Since there may be a switch of positive and negative energy, the BH may be just a sphere of that. The BH may contain stuff but it isn't the stuff it contains.

There are at least 3 different perspectives to 'nothing'. 1. no thing (thing being a placeholder for stuff (instead of naming the stuff) and thereby no thing is either stuff not existing or there's no placeholder for stuff); 2. not hing (detached); 3. nothing (no single thing which could mean everything!)

 

[Atlan0001]

A quark is three-dimensional, and geometrically speaking, if blackholes are "points", they can't have any dimension. A point does not have a dimension, mass or width.

I would like a professional reference for your statement that a quark is three-dimensional. Thank you in advance.

 

[Logicalgal175]

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.

I just don’t think anything...light, (photons), matter, neighboring star stuff nor anything else goes actually INTO a black hole. It may go as far as the accretion disc of the black hole, but then it gets spun around, and ejected back out in the form of the jets that the Hubble Space telescope just recently captured. I think people sometimes think of a black “hole” as a tunnel. I don’t happen to think it is. I think it is a tear in the fabric of space time caused by an implosion or explosion of a star of such force that it is beyond anything we could possibly measure or even imagine.

 

[IG2007]

3. nothing (no single thing which could mean everything!)

That is what I always joke with my friends! I always pun them by saying, that "I exist nowhere, thus, I exist everywhere!"

I would like a professional reference for your statement that a quark is three-dimensional. Thank you in advance.

As if a quark has no dimension?

 

[tiape]

To answer the thread question, could be that the gravitational force inside the black hole is so strong that any atomical structure would be pulled apart and therefore photons couldn't exist.

If it can exists, then it probably would take an infinite period of time to reach the event horizon. During this 'time', the photon can change into other particles such as an electron-positron pair which doesn't need to move whereas the photon needs to move to keep its energy and existence.

 

[Logicalgal175]

" 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 grdens.

Cat

I too happen to believe that the universe is and always has been and always will be...always and forever expanding. That's my opinion. I'm also going to say that I am not convinced there ever was a "Big Bang". And recently, finally, finally, I am now starting to read about other astrophysicists who are also questioning the "Big Bang" theory. Gee whiz. All they had to do was ask me.

 

[vincenzosassone]

I wonder if there's not a paradox regarding the infinite density of a singularity. If one BH, say of mass 20 suns, has a singularity of infinite density, and another BH, say of 40 suns, also has infinite density, which infinite density is larger than the other infinite density? Wouldn't their EH's not also have infinite radii?

It's no surprise to hear that the equations of modern physics fails at singularities. The expression I like best is that "the wheels go flying off" the wagon.

Let's go!
You got me in the first part, then you lose your point: this is without doubt something strange, infinity in not possible to describe, but if you want to put it in this way, that's ok. Math teaches us: no matter how infinity is, if you want to subtract infinity to infinity you can have zero as well as infinity (the result won't be clear...). For this reason you can't compare Black Holes with an infinite density.

Science, IMO, should only loosely be understood to be about reality. I prefer to think of science as a conversation with nature and not that science is objective-based, where hard facts take precedence. There are zero hard facts about disappearing matter, especially when EHs are stable due to the very likely presence of matter.

Certainly, why not? This is only a theory after all...

A quark is three-dimensional, and geometrically speaking, if blackholes are "points", they can't have any dimension. A point does not have a dimension, mass or width.

"they can't have any dimension" one hundred per cent. I have an idea about it, given that they are the strangest things in the Universe and someways resemble the Big Bang, they don't have neither space dimensions, nor time dimensions (this is something I believe). They have mass though. According to math, all the numbers divided by zero give infinity. We remember that density is given by the ratio between mass (in this case a random nunmber) and volume. (zero), this is possible.

Right, it is an idea. A friend once told me of a great idea I thought I had, "of all your ideas, that's one of them!" Without objective evidence even in principle, there is no science, only psuedoscience or metaphysics. This is the subjective world of supposition for even conjectures should include some objective evidence. Yet, I can't imagine any science not beginning where you are. Ideas and reason are what connect the dots of objective evidence.

Of course, you're right. Maybe is better if I finish to say things I can't explain.