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

[Atlan0001]

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

As if a quark has no dimension?

A non-answer? A nothing answer.

 

[Atlan0001]

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.

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

"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.

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

A 'string' end on is a 'point'. A wormhole end on in space is point to a point. You can circumnavigate a point, like a blackhole, and not find the corridor, the tube, the wormhole, the blackhole exit way (essentially a single-sided 2-dimensional frame), or in another dimensionality, the blue-white hole entry way (again, single-sided 2-dimensional frame). Two mirror-opposed single-sided 2-dimensional frames (one of the relatively large universe and slow to go; one of the relatively small universe and fast to go, so blue-white hot it is here one instant and gone the next (a quantum field fluctuation)). The two, in their infinities across spaces and over times, exactly matched.

Einstein said it takes three dimensions to "describe" a point. A point of relativity, so to speak. He did not say a point has no dimension(s) of its own. He did not say it was not a dimension in its own right if and when it [gains] in dimensionality-- such as becoming a four-dimensionality with any gain of three dimensions.

A point infinitesimal has infinite dimensionality. An infinity of point infinitesimals can define an infinity of finite, local, universes (alternatively an infinity of multiverses (multi-dimensionalities)). "Infinite" recognizes "finite" only as "infinitesimal point(s)," just as "finite" only recognizes "infinite" as boundaryless "potential" of infinite or infinitesimal, or infinity (plural).

A binary '0' is no decimal '0'. In extended base system 0-9 is (base) 10. In decimal, of course, 1-10 is 10. Of course at base, base 2 is binary (0 and/or 1). So 0-point does not mean nothing-point. Nor does it mean everything-point. '0-point' center of an infinite Universe is every infinitesimal 0-point of an infinity of such everywhere to the infinite Universe. They do not add to, they do not subtract from, the infinite. They are superposition correlative. They co-exist. As what they are, in total they are never gained nor lost to the infinite. As to the infinity of finite(s), the finite of gain (+) is superposition correlative with the finite of loss (-) for net '0' gain, net '0' loss. The infinite Universe (U) loses nothing and gains nothing. Being infinitely dense massive it is ultimately decelerative to the max, being in no way energetic; therefore, it is timeless. The infinity of finite universes (u) lose everything... and gain everything (superposition correlative), for a net of '0' gain, '0' loss. Losing everything and gaining everything, though, they are as energetic as it is possible to be. Only in total of their infinity -- the infinity of point infinitesimals (the other side of the coin of infinite Universe; its own mirror to infinity) -- are they timeless.

A blackhole's event horizon is probably here in every local, relative, universe, the rest of it probably not. That which is probably not will swallow the event horizon, too, eventually. They, blackholes, just take a little longer (well, relatively speaking, a lot longer) than the Planck level blue-white holes (totaled, the timelessly constant entity of the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?') to come and go. In the Cosmos of All a balance of nature(s) is ultimately maintained: Will always be maintained.

 

[IG2007]

BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?

 

[Catastrophe]

tiape
"If it can exists, then it probably would take an infinite period of time to reach the event horizon."

Is this not only from the perspective of an external observaer?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

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.

" And recently, finally, finally, I am now starting to read about other astrophysicists who are also questioning the "Big Bang" theory."
Ever tried considering a cyclic Universe with a Big Nexus and no Bang? Cat

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

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.

A rotating black hole event horizon can approach but never attain the universal spped limit (of, say, light in vacuum). But that has nothing to do with infalling particles or the known general relativistic solutions to rotating black holes [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric ].

Note, by the way, that the potential innermost singularity has little to do with the solution problems further out.

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.***

A black hole emit a (mostly weak) Hawking radiation that has nothing to do with the jet emission.

I covered that in another comment. There are 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/ ].

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.

Black holes aren't "black", they emit Hawking faint radiation. But the reason why we don't call them stars is because they are not but need special treatment [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ].

I don't think black holes exist.

The evidence of their existence gave the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 [ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/ ].

Why must we believe there was some solid ball of whatever then suddenly "big bang"?

That isn't the big bang theory, and the universe hasn't been thought of it like that for a century. The old big bang theory - nowadays the inflationary hit big bang theory - is that space expands everywhere. The universe hasn't a well defined center - it is too large for that - and the start of the hot big bang was a moment in time and not a place in space.

That big bang was "an explosion" is the oldest and most erroneous myth about cosmology there is [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...yths-you-probably-believe-about-the-big-bang/ ].

We should not belive in observed facts byu accept them based on the evidence. Big bang is such a fact [see that link for some of the evidence].

Faster than light Physics occurs even in the present-day Universe,

Not locally, that is forbidden by relativity. If you look at large enough volumes, sure you can say that opposite edges expand faster, but that means little. (It is mostly connected to the physics of the size of the observable universe.)

The infinite Universe of the Big Crunch Vortex

A black hole can't be "a universe" since a universe has no boundary but a black hole has (its event horizon). And our universe isn't rotating or being able to crunch - the background radiation spectra tells us both these things.

 

[Catastrophe]

BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?

Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.

Cat

 

[vincenzosassone]

A 'string' end on is a 'point'. A wormhole end on in space is point to a point. You can circumnavigate a point, like a blackhole, and not find the corridor, the tube, the wormhole, the blackhole exit way (essentially a single-sided 2-dimensional frame), or in another dimensionality, the blue-white hole entry way (again, single-sided 2-dimensional frame). Two mirror-opposed single-sided 2-dimensional frames (one of the relatively large universe and slow to go; one of the relatively small universe and fast to go, so blue-white hot it is here one instant and gone the next (a quantum field fluctuation)). The two, in their infinities across spaces and over times, exactly matched.

I'm really sorry, I tried to read it three times but I don't know what do you want to tell me.

Einstein said it takes three dimensions to "describe" a point. A point of relativity, so to speak. He did not say a point has no dimension(s) of its own. He did not say it was not a dimension in its own right if and when it [gains] in dimensionality-- such as becoming a four-dimensionality with any gain of three dimensions.

Nono. Describing the position of a point is something, describing the form and the value of the same point is something else. In a two-dimensional Universe, indeed, we must describe the position of a point only using two dimensions. In a four-dimensional Universe, four.

A point infinitesimal has infinite dimensionality. An infinity of point infinitesimals can define an infinity of finite, local, universes (alternatively an infinity of multiverses (multi-dimensionalities)). "Infinite" recognizes "finite" only as "infinitesimal point(s)," just as "finite" only recognizes "infinite" as boundaryless "potential" of infinite or infinitesimal, or infinity (plural).

Of course. This is possible only because of two inportant vision of this aspect: Firstly, the points that build the geometrical space are infinities, secondly, according to my previous speech, we have the possibility to represent the position of a point in all the dimensions of the Universe where it is conteined.

A binary '0' is no decimal '0'. In extended base system 0-9 is (base) 10. In decimal, of course, 1-10 is 10. Of course at base, base 2 is binary (0 and/or 1). So 0-point does not mean nothing-point. Nor does it mean everything-point. '0-point' center of an infinite Universe is every infinitesimal 0-point of an infinity of such everywhere to the infinite Universe. They do not add to, they do not subtract from, the infinite. They are superposition correlative. They co-exist. As what they are, in total they are never gained nor lost to the infinite. As to the infinity of finite(s), the finite of gain (+) is superposition correlative with the finite of loss (-) for net '0' gain, net '0' loss. The infinite Universe (U) loses nothing and gains nothing. Being infinitely dense massive it is ultimately decelerative to the max, being in no way energetic; therefore, it is timeless. The infinity of finite universes (u) lose everything... and gain everything (superposition correlative), for a net of '0' gain, '0' loss. Losing everything and gaining everything, though, they are as energetic as it is possible to be. Only in total of their infinity -- the infinity of point infinitesimals (the other side of the coin of infinite Universe; its own mirror to infinity) -- are they timeless.

This is very difficult to follow, but if I understood something, is that you think the Universe resembles the concept of infinity that, in turn, is everything even if the concept itself is strange. Anyways, I agree, but only up to a certain point: I don't think we can match the concept of infinity with the Universe.

They, blackholes, just take a little longer (well, relatively speaking, a lot longer) than the Planck level blue-white holes (totaled, the timelessly constant entity of the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?') to come and go. In the Cosmos of All a balance of nature(s) is ultimately maintained: Will always be maintained.

I agree!

 

[vincenzosassone]

BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?

If you have a formula like this: Density=mass/volume, we would surely have an infinite density if the volume was zero.

Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.

Cat

Yes...

 

[Catastrophe]

Vincen,

I believe a singularity is just a mathematical obfuscation, so I have no problem.

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can someone please explain that to me?

What you said above doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Therefore it can't be explained. No wonder your confusion.

 

[Catastrophe]

I did. Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.

 

[IG2007]

What you said above doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Therefore it can't be explained. No wonder your confusion.

Yes, but I guess I myself got the answer to my question, the blackhole has infinite density only at point zero, but it has finite density at other parts. And, as always, Cat is correct.

Maybe it does not have infinite ( ) density.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"only at point zero, but it has finite density at other parts."

I almost agree - except imho there is no point zero. The black holes expunges all their infinites via asymptotic approches to nexi (?) (or keep the same word nexus. Nexuses is awful nut it is proffered as an option.)

Cat

P.S. The one thing I am a little in doubt over is entropy. Newtonian would have entropy increasing through each cycle. I don't like that. It limits cycles. Maybe the top inflection point heralds a recersal in entropy. I mean it makes no sense whatsoever (to me) to have a big bang where all this 'stuff' explodes out of nothing. Think of a venture. Pressure builds up behind the constriction and spews out the other side like a "big burst".

 

[Catastrophe]

Try this idea. At the 'top' of the cycle, space has reached its most empty condition and therefore contracts so forcing "stuff" closer together again and decreasing entropy. Note the elegant use of the word "stuff". Nice 'holdall' for all your mass/energy/dark whaterers! Space contracts maybe because of 'light energy' as in opposite of dark. Just joking! Space contracts because it is tired of not holding anything so it collapses. As "stuff" comes together it attracts, some react chemically and order increases until it gets to the 'other' side of the next Big whatever where entropy is minimum because it is all in (big laugh please) a Big Bang. After what I am proposing is just the opposite of the BB. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Old English saying.

My change in style is because it is my 82nd Birthday today, so I am being a little frivolous with my nomenclature. It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Happy Birthday!

 

[vincenzosassone]

Vincen,

I believe a singularity is just a mathematical obfuscation, so I have no problem.

Cat

I don't know what is your "mathematical obfuscation" and what does it mean , but if I know something is that Universe is ruled by physics, and physics is math. Thus, we can't say math rules have no effects if this is what you mean...

 

[vincenzosassone]

My change in style is because it is my 82nd Birthday today, so I am being a little frivolous with my nomenclature. It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.

Wow, happy birthday Cat!

 

[vincenzosassone]

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Funny

It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.

LOL

 

[Wolfshadw]

Happy Birthday, Cat!


-Wolf sends

 

[Atlan0001]

My change in style is because it is my 82nd Birthday today, so I am being a little frivolous with my nomenclature. It is 7 am here and no alcohol has been consumed. The party doesn't start for hours yet.

Cat

Happy Birthday.

 

[Harry Costas]

The property of :
Chiral Super Symmetry Dipolar Electro Magnetic Condensates, found in star cores and many through all galaxies a non classical black holes, that mimic the properties of Black Holes.
Classical Black Holes in theory form a singularity thus preventing nothing from escaping.
A Condensate due to its physical properties forms a dipolar vortex releasing high dense matter from the core.
Perpendicular to the vortex the condensate pulls in matter and if the core is large enough the vector fields will also prevent light from escaping.
Transient matter from Axion to Neutron matter can determine how this condensate mimics Classical Black Holes.
Take M87 the dipolar vortex releasing droplets of dense matter, has formed the elliptical galaxy with billions of stars.
Axion matter 10 to 35
In between composite range.
Neutron matter 10 to 17.
Hour glass images formed
Spiral galaxy arms from stable vortex.
Giant condensates over 100 billion solar masses .
The above are issues still been studied.

 

[Joel]

A rotating black hole event horizon can approach but never attain the universal spped limit (of, say, light in vacuum). But that has nothing to do with infalling particles or the known general relativistic solutions to rotating black holes [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric ].

Note, by the way, that the potential innermost singularity has little to do with the solution problems further out.



A black hole emit a (mostly weak) Hawking radiation that has nothing to do with the jet emission.

I covered that in another comment. There are 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/ ].



Black holes aren't "black", they emit Hawking faint radiation. But the reason why we don't call them stars is because they are not but need special treatment [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius ].



The evidence of their existence gave the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 [ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/ ].



That isn't the big bang theory, and the universe hasn't been thought of it like that for a century. The old big bang theory - nowadays the inflationary hit big bang theory - is that space expands everywhere. The universe hasn't a well defined center - it is too large for that - and the start of the hot big bang was a moment in time and not a place in space.

That big bang was "an explosion" is the oldest and most erroneous myth about cosmology there is [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...yths-you-probably-believe-about-the-big-bang/ ].

We should not belive in observed facts byu accept them based on the evidence. Big bang is such a fact [see that link for some of the evidence].



Not locally, that is forbidden by relativity. If you look at large enough volumes, sure you can say that opposite edges expand faster, but that means little. (It is mostly connected to the physics of the size of the observable universe.)



A black hole can't be "a universe" since a universe has no boundary but a black hole has (its event horizon). And our universe isn't rotating or being able to crunch - the background radiation spectra tells us both these things.

I believe you missed the point of my statements. I am not debating whether or not Hawking Radiation is weak. I am simply stating that current theoretical positions that nothing can escape a BH are based on unconfirmed mathematical suppositions that are rooted in constants that can not possibly hold true due to the tremendous energies associated with a BH. The accretion disk and polar jets are assumed to be the result of all of the massive energies at the edge of the BH.

SR and GR are not applicable. The Speed of Light Constant is based upon light moving through a vacuum. BH's screw that whole premise up. We can't observe beyond the event horizon. We lack the technological ability to do so.

My position is that BH's have the capacity to accelerate photons beyond the known constant used in those theories. I have no proof of this. I have no mathematical formula to indicate this. There is so much we really don't know about BH's. Everything we THINK we know is based upon constants that are surely changed by the BH's influence on those constants. Even the formula used to determine the volume of a BH has been called into question as late as February of this year when Space.com revealed that Cygnus X-1 is 50% larger than previously thought. In addition, what has been stated repeatedly during these post is the belief that the accretion disk and the polar jets are the result of energies colliding at the edge of the BH and could not possible be from the BH itself, but these beliefs are based upon the firm conviction that the mathematical constants are not somehow affected by the BH.

There is so much we don't understand about the Universe, and that goes more for other universes we are just accepting may exist. In my 57 years I have watched the scientific repeatedly reverse itself as some new discovery or some new approach to mathematics was discovered. Just to be clear, I am not trying to debate String Theory. I am just stating that mankind often approaches problems, situations, and solutions with a predetermined biases based upon what we think we understand. I am just postulating that BH's are probably beyond our current ability to understand and closing our minds to the possibility that as a species we have the ability to close that gap before our inevitable extinction is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for that understanding. I'm just saying that currently it is beyond us as a species.

 

[Catastrophe]

Happy Birthday, Cat!


-Wolf sends

Thank you. 82 today! Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

There is so much we don't understand about the Universe, and that goes more for other universes we are just accepting may exist. In my 57 years I have watched the scientific repeatedly reverse itself as some new discovery or some new approach to mathematics was discovered. Just to be clear, I am not trying to debate String Theory. I am just stating that mankind often approaches problems, situations, and solutions with a predetermined biases based upon what we think we understand. I am just postulating that BH's are probably beyond our current ability to understand and closing our minds to the possibility that as a species we have the ability to close that gap before our inevitable extinction is ridiculous to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for that understanding. I'm just saying that currently it is beyond us as a species.

The Earth is smaller than a pinprick in our universe alone. We view our universe through the prism of that smaller than a pinprick object and the fact that the Earth's gravity, the solar system's gravity, the Milky Way's gravity and a lot more, both discernable and not, does things to the our ability to observe our own universe.... well, we'll never really know all that much concerning it until we are out there and truly traveling around in it, if even then. It, our own universe, is both broader and deeper than our views of it. It is only the finite local, relatively broad, plane of it we observe, not its (would be to us) dense mass depth of planes coming at us here, everywhere here is, from a collapsed horizon of an infinity (we cannot possibly observe). It is my view that the [infinite] Universe transforms that non-local infinity (though it remains that non-local infinity) to local physical uses.... to even local observations and physics we observe and experience within our local universe.

And our, and life's itself, "extinction" is not "inevitable." Life built itself a relative guarantee against extinction by expanding from its local mudhole. We, and Earth-life itself, may do the same with nova-like expansion and massive decentralizing in going much smaller but much bigger in in-space colonization. No surface is greater to build on, no depth deeper to create in, than the breadth and depth of space itself.