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

Page 5 - 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.
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
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.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
I don't know what is your "mathematical obfuscation" and what does it mean 🤔 :sweatsmile: , 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...
No. I didn't mean that. I meant that sometimes maths can cloud the underlying "reality" whatever that may mean. Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
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.
So you don't believe in any "curvature" regarding the universe. That a capable universe traveler traveling at speed away from the Milky Way would see it doing time reversal in his review mirror toward a distant collapsed horizon. Not just time reversal but curving away from the straight line the traveler would be trying to keep it in to keep it centered and focused in his review mirror. The traveler would have to make adjustments, curving in his own travel, to his navigation to maintain the Milky Way centered and focused in his review mirror.

But the Milky Way, rather the earlier versions of it back to its mergers of component parts, would be flatly refusing to stay centered and focusable to his rear. It would keep on curving away and he, the traveler, would have to keep curving with it to keep it at all. Eventually he would lose it anyway in the distant horizon, but not before he had lost it from his own inability to keep on accelerating, spiraling, into that "vortex" of "curvature."
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2020
177
129
260
No. I didn't mean that. I meant that sometimes maths can cloud the underlying "reality" whatever that may mean. Cat :)
Hi Cat.
Of course, I can understand that, I may say you're right! Math is in many ways a "precursor" of some ideas of physical objects in the Universe. The main problem is that we don't even know math in its full form and we can't understand many principles, sometimes even more simple than we think...
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"
means you have to treat both the same.

Cat :)
Yes:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Dec 2, 2019
23
14
515
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.
I hope, with you, that extinction is not inevitable. However, as I observe mankind's pitiful stop and go behavior in escaping the bonds of our planet, and our penchant for self destructive behavior, it is difficult for me to fathom that we as a species will ever unite long enough to realize that dream.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
621
695
1,760
Seems he got there first.
That is one of my most favourite quotes of Sir Albert Einstein. For example, from geometry, take a look at the concept of points. It does not have any dimension and nor mass. Such a thing is impossible in reality, even if I consider that there are infinite points in the universe, (ugh, I don't even like that word,) it does not really matter, they are all illusory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
I agree.

" it does not really matter, they are all illusory."

so what are we talking about.

By the way :) Universe (the only one) has a capital U.

Whatever you do (it would blow up my new laptop of 2 days old) NEVER spell the U word with a capital U and with . . . . . . I scarcely dare write it . . . . . . an s at the end.
 
Mar 5, 2021
22
6
15
BTW, I am always confused how anything with infinite density can have finite mass. Can please explain that to me? :)
Density=mass/vol. When vol=0 as is assumed in the singularity that would then result in density being infinite. Anything divided by 0 is infinite. The assumption here depends upon what happens to falling objects inside BH-are they squished where volume goes down to 0 or are they spaghettified where their volume stays the same.

There may be a possibility that we may be having at least 2 perspectives. One from the vacuum surrounding the black hole. The other is from the black hole, itself, as a point source of matter.

'A black hole is a point source of matter. It is surrounded by a vacuum, though not a perfect vacuum. ' The Einstein field equations say that when you start with a cloud of particles with some size, and let it free-fall through a vacuum, it always maintains constant volume.
 
Aug 14, 2020
316
74
260
Universe (U), universe(s) (u). ('1') ('1:1:1:1....') Mirror mirroring to infinity of..... points. Infinite / Infinitesimal. Infinite(s) / finite(s). Infinity of point infinitesimal(s) / infinity of finite (bubble) universes. Tractable bubbles (points) (dimensions) ('1') ('1:1:1:1....'). Dead center position of infinite, 0-point (a real point of space (not a history, not a ghost)) (a real point of time (not a history, not a ghost)). The infinity of 0-points broad and deep. How many particles in a particle? How many points in a point? How many points in a point infinitesimal? How many points in a (tractable) bubble universe? How many points to each end of the wormhole corridor (not all would have to be bi-directional) of any blackhole you can circumnavigate the event horizon of completely? Distant points "entangled." "Spooky action at a distance."
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2021
22
6
15
Starting with the following definition 'A black hole is a point source of matter. It is surrounded by a vacuum, though not a perfect vacuum. ' and reading many perspectives since none of us know for sure what is happening in there, I have a flexible perspective.

When an object falls into the opening, it first is greeted by a vacuum which starts the spaghettification of that object, tearing it up into small bits where the mass of that object has lessened to almost 0 and volume and speed remain the same throughout the vacuum according to Einstein's field equations. Some of those small particles will come in contact with the gravitational pull of the dense point of matter (which has charge and spins) of the collapsed star. There are, for now, four different kinds of black holes depending upon its mass and radius. These affect the strength of the gravitational pull. Those small spaghettified particles curve the space-time axis into the point source of matter adding to the mass. Their volume has become close to 0 because of the squishing from the gravity (thereby density is infinite). The vacuum is necessary to control how much mass is allowed to be squished down by gravity to be added to the mass of the black hole.

When protons, which have a finite energy, comes closer to the event horizon (linked to the object's escape velocity), the resistance is much greater than the speed and energy of the proton and so it starts to lose its energy and therefore its speed. Protons can't exist without those 2 qualities. Therefore, it then breaks down into an electron-positron particle which can exist without moving. Many times one can witness these electron-positron particles being expelled from the black hole. I'm not sure the mechanism but maybe it has to do with like charges being repelled.

Still working on the details of this perspective ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rabsal

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
When you are dealing with things which cannot be observed, you are creating mental pictures and subjecting them to the filters of language and human experience.
The results may "seem" to reflect your opinion of "reality" or, perhaps, seem to support your ideas over someone else's, but before long, someone will claim a better fit to their ideas.
Now put this in a scenario where you are paid according to who thinks that your ideas are best. This is not science.

Cat ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: vincenzosassone
Mar 5, 2021
22
6
15
You are so right. I only brought up this perspective because I have not seen much on the vacuum that surrounds the black hole which is in a definition of a black hole (someone has observed it in order to be included in a definition?), I bring up a possibility that within the vacuum, spaghettifying (maybe from a lesser force of the gravity of the black hole since vacuum is further away from the dense matter) could be taking place, Volume and speed isn't lost in this process. Protons can go through intact. Within the gravity of the dense matter, volume is almost to 0 and gives density its infinity.

Because of the strong force of the event horizon, protons would lose their speed and energy (like trying to move a boulder uphill) and would need to change to something that doesn't need to move in order to exist. For the existence of protons, they need both energy and speed from what I have read.

There's also the possibility that there isn't a vacuum surrounding the black hole. Since I found it a part of the definition, I assumed there is one.
 
Nov 2, 2020
177
129
260
When you are dealing with things which cannot be observed, you are creating mental pictures and subjecting them to the filters of language and human experience.
Hi Cat,
Maybe you're right, but I'm not totally sure about it. I was thinking about something of this kind days ago, and I thought, using my ideas and thinking, that we are now at this level thanks to these efforts. If we stay in our field, without doing anything to go away and discover new things, we can't have a beautiful future. Anyways, I want to be clear with you, this is something I think, this isn't forced to be true, but I have the impression that we have the first image of a Black Hole thanks to our dark and idealistic studies made before, thanks to the intuition of a normal man.
Anyways, I also know this is the work of a philosopher, for this reason I don't know very well whether I can be with you talking about this aspect or not...
This is not science.
You're right after all. This is an important aspect, we can't talk about a scientist using the same words for a philosopher. It was beautiful when matematicians and scientists were also philosophers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
Hi Vincen,
I am very lucky to have been raised on the works of Korzybski.

Quote
Alfred Korzybski - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Alfred_Korzybski

Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski(/kɔːrˈzɪbski, -ˈzɪp-, -ˈʒɪp-, kəˈʒɪpski/, Polish: [ˈalfrɛt kɔˈʐɨpskʲi]; July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics.
Fields: Engineer, ‎philosopher‎, ‎mathematician
Died: March 1, 1950 (aged 70); Lakeville, Con...
Early life and career · ‎General semantics · ‎"To be" · ‎Anecdotes
Quote

Probably his best known quote is "the map is not the territory". You have probably seen me use this many times. Mathematics says that the area of a rectangular field is x times y = xy. This is clearly an abstraction because it ignores the grass and the flowers and so on. This is just a very oversimplified example of how we define the field as so many hectares. It gets much more important.

Cat :)
 
Nov 2, 2020
177
129
260
Hi Vincen,
I am very lucky to have been raised on the works of Korzybski.

Quote
Alfred Korzybski - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Alfred_Korzybski

Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski(/kɔːrˈzɪbski, -ˈzɪp-, -ˈʒɪp-, kəˈʒɪpski/, Polish: [ˈalfrɛt kɔˈʐɨpskʲi]; July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics.
Hi Cat!
That's an incredible philosopher! I always read the words of philosophers, and I always agree with their logic and linear toughts. Anyways, this philosopher struck me, and a lot!
This is an important aspect I want to shed more light on, if you will. He thoght we were limited by our brain (for this reason we can even involve our way to caught knowledge) and our language. About language I perfectly agree being a "foreigner" here (I know this isn't the right interpretation of his thought, but I want to say it the same).
Anyway, talking about the first aspect (we are limited by ur brain) I must say that there are a lot of possible interpretations, for this reason now I don't know whether he wanted to refer to all the knowledges or only that taken "by far" (even if I guess he referred to all the knowledges). If we talk about something very close to us, we can also use senses, otherwise, we are limited by the words of scientists who are working on it (and now, I can't go through my limited knowledges). But now, there are scientists who are living their discoveries from themselves, that are only limited by their brain, they can get the keey concept of these things. For this reason this philosopher, thank you for sharing, made me thing this. What do you think about it? I know this isn't something you believe in, but this thought can be "correct" in my opinion.
By the way, this:
made me laugh.
Thanks again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,794
1,718
6,070
Hi Vincen
Thank you for pointing out that "Anecdote". That, in itself, is a tremendous example of "the map is not the territory". The students completely accepted "the map" in that they assumed "biscuits" must mean the biscuits were in the area labelled "human edible biscuits". However, the map turned out to be inaccurate, because the territory was actually "dog biscuits".
I gave another example about a field being "mapped" simply by its dimensions, whereas the territory might actually include grass and flowers, or even animals and their "leftovers". A far cry (or distant territory) from xy hectares.
Another interesting pastime is to analyse advertisements in newspapers, magazines or tv. Try to imagine what reality they are trying to "paint up" or maybe "cover up".
I don't know if this is what you had in mind. If you would like to elaborate a little I will try to oblige. But please bear in mind "Science and Sanity" is a heavy volume; I am 82 and it is some 50 years since I read it. However, as you see, the message "the map is not the territory" has stayed with me and is still in use on a daily basis.

Perhaps I can add another topical example. (Covid vaccinations). Since I was a child I had this fear of injections - I think this is quite normal. Over the years I worked out that my whole brain was concentrating on the tiny patch of skin where the pain would overwhelm me. Now I adopt the time honoured approach of not thinking about it. I generalise (in my mind) that tiny patch to my whole shoulder or body and "share out" the pain so that it is not felt overwhelmingly. I know this does not make sense, but neither do the dog biscuits. It would not work touching red hot metal, but the biscuit story would not work if they contained cyanide. There are myriad examples where words are loosely used and potentially misunderstood. What I got from Korzybski was not to take words "at face value" where the situation indicated it. Over the years it has been of very great value to me.

Cat :)

P.S. If anyone thinks that General Semantics are off topic, just look at the title:

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

. . . . . . . . . and see how those bold words arouse preconceptions!
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2020
177
129
260
Another interesting pastime is to analyse advertisements in newspapers, magazines or tv. Try to imagine what reality they are trying to "paint up" or maybe "cover up".
I have an interesting story about it. I was surfing the web and I found something very strange. I don't remember how I found it but now I know that advertisements on TV about milk are made with glue instead! The most important properties of glue are two, glue is more white than milk and manage to stay in the same position for hours instead of being wasted with the passing of time. This is a perfect illusion advertisements use to improve the celebrity of the product.
Over the years I worked out that my whole brain was concentrating on the tiny patch of skin where the pain would overwhelm me. Now I adopt the time honoured approach of not thinking about it. I generalise (in my mind) that tiny patch to my whole shoulder or body and "share out" the pain so that it is not felt overwhelmingly. I know this does not make sense, but neither do the dog biscuits.
I agree, this makes sense instead...
If you begin to think about it in a different manner, everything will be different.

Our brain makes us see something as we want, we only have to focus on it and overwhelm a vision that is wrong for us. This, maybe, is summary of everything.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS