Is the matter in a black hole at edge or center?

[newtonian]

Clearly, black holes appear to have mass.<br /><br />Yet some say the mass is not there, it has disappeared into an infinitely small radius singularity.<br /><br />Rather, the mass's imprint is on the black hole event horizon, frozen in time and still exerting gravity.<br /><br />Is gravity immune to the differences in reference points - such that it does not matter if the matter is inside or outside of the event horizon?<br /><br />Or is gravity immune to time such that even with time frozen for said matter, yet said matter still exerts the same gravity it would have with passage of time?<br /><br />I suspect matter is not at the edge, ditto information btw, but rather inside the black hole.<br /><br />However, I also suspect that the radius of said matter is not infinitely small - not therefore a true singularity but rather with extremely tiny radius, perhaps at some lower limit that exists which is smaller than Planck length?<br /><br />Therefore I suspect that gravity can escape the tiny center of gravity in the black hole and exit through the event horizon.<br /><br />Another question: does the radiation of gravitons reduce the mass of the black hole? <br /><br />Or is the radiation of gravity actually due to energy from other dimensions interacting with mass at tiny interaction points or strings which can also interact at the tiny radius of a black hole center? <br /><br />The latter would mean, of course, that space is not truly empty but rather has energy potential, perhaps due to additional dimensions or strings, or perhaps due to some other properties which are involved with both acceleration of expansion of our universe, causes of inflation, and appearance and disappearance of virtual particles.<br /><br />I am not saying the law of conservation of matter and energy is violated, btw. <br /><br />[Another related question: Is the black hole event horizon due primarily to our reference point outside said horizon - such that said edge does not actually exist for matter entering t

 

[willpittenger]

Simply put, black holes rewrite the laws of physics and no one really understands the new version. Those that come the closest are String Theorists. As for radiation, the Wikipedia article on Black Holes says all black holes give off Hawking Radiation. Based on what I saw, most of your answers may be available on that page. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

willpittenger – Thank you for the link.<br /><br />I have doubts about string theory – I certainly consider it possible – or perhaps some variant but similar model.<br /><br />The link seems to contradict itself, to wit:<br /><br /><font color="blue">Nothing can move from inside the event horizon to the outside, even briefly.</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">It has also been hypothesized that black holes radiate energy due to quantum mechanical effects known as Hawking radiation.</font><br /><br />Needless to say, that does not answer my question – I was already aware of both beliefs.<br /><br />I agree primordial black holes of varying masses may have been produced during the origin of our universe, and that this may make up some of the dark matter out there.<br /><br />I suspect, based on my model based on Jude 13, that some of these primordial black holes have escaped the light and gravity of our universe such that our universe effectively, i.e. by cause and effect, has less gravity and therefore has acceleration of expansion – see my thread on that.<br /><br />Your link states:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The gravitational field outside a black hole is identical to the field produced by any other spherically symmetric object of the same mass. The popular conception of black holes as "sucking" things in is false: objects can orbit around black holes indefinitely without getting any closer. The strange properties of spacetime only become noticeable closer to the black hole.</font><br /><br />OK, I have my doubts this is correct. If it truly is identical, then tidal interactions such as those which stabilize the orbit of the moon around earth and earth’s rotation speed would occur.<br /><br />I suspect such tidal interactions do not occur with a black hole, thus stabilizing the rotation speed of the black hole.<br /><br />Therefore cause and effect would not be identical.<br /><br />Do we have any evidence, pro or con, on this?<br /><br />Actually, t

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />The latter would mean, of course, that space is not truly empty but rather has energy potential, perhaps due to additional dimensions or strings, or perhaps due to some other properties which are involved with both acceleration of expansion of our universe, causes of inflation, and appearance and disappearance of virtual particles. </i><br /><br />Correct, due to the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles, which IMO, is evidence for additional dimensions.<br />See Casimir Effect:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

kyle_baron - Interesting link. <br /><br />Deep.<br /><br />Deep into space, and I am now spaced out!<br /><br />OK, I thought virtual particles have been observed to appear and disappear - but the link states they cannot and have not been observed.<br /><br />Casimer effect and Van de Waals force have been observed. They are very interesting indeed and should have some meaning for how our universe originated.<br /><br />This tangent, btw, has escaped the edge of thread theme; the edge of a black hole!<br /><br />Appropriately so, since Hawking radiation does involve the same cause and effect mechanism that causes the Casimir effect: via the production of particle - antiparticle pairs, the capture of one but the escape of the other.<br /><br />Now, links from the links imply something from nothing - but Hawking radiation is something from something - perhaps something else!<br /><br />Of course, Hawking radiation would put matter from where-ever within the black hole to beyond the edge of said black hole - and I assume at escape velocity???<br /><br />But my question would be, would that Hawking radiation come from the edge or center of the black hole - or somewhere in between? <br /><br />Did I succeed in capturing at least one part of the posts back within the edge of black hole theme?

 

[alokmohan]

Who says mass is not there?All bizzare things.Black hole is like other physical objects. Physics inside is different.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Who says mass is not there?All bizzare things.Black hole is like other physical objects. Physics inside is different.</font><br /><br />I am afraid this statement is untenable. Physics is the same for all observers.<br /><br />On a different note...<br /><br />If time and space switch beneath the event horizon then surely you couldn't survive past the event horizon. Nothing would happen? As if.... if time and space switched roles (three time dimensions and one spatial dimension), then your body wouldn't function inside a black hole. It's that simple.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Of course, Hawking radiation would put matter from where-ever within the black hole to beyond the edge of said black hole - and I assume at escape velocity??? <br /><br />But my question would be, would that Hawking radiation come from the edge or center of the black hole - or somewhere in between? </i><br /><br />You really shouldn't use the word edge, when it comes to blackholes <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. Granted, a blackhole is pictured as a cone heading down towards a point or singularity. But that's 2 dimensional. In reality, it's many cones heading towards the singularity, from all directions (360 Deg.)<br /><br />The answer to your question from The Elegant Universe p. 337 "This jittery quantum behavior also occurs in the region of space just outside the event horizon of a blackhole (outside your so called edge). Hawking realized that the gravitational might of the blackhole can inject energy into a pair of virtual photons, that tears them far enough apart, so that one gets sucked into the hole. .....the remaining photon gets an energy boost from the blackhole, and as its partner falls in, it gets shot outward. The combined effect, happening over and over again, appears as outgoing radiation. Blackholes <i>glow</i>.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

So if the gravity is a million times a million times a million g= 10E18 g at the event horizon: what is the average wave length of the "glow", one light year from the black hole? Neil

 

[bobw]

That was a fun question. It took me a while but here's my guess! <br /><br />First I figgured out the Swartzchild radius for a 10¹⁸ g black hole, then the mass from the Swartzchild radius. I rounded everything to two decimal places while doing my work yet when I plugged these numbers into an online escape velocity calculator I got 297240760 m/sec which is pretty close to light speed so I think my answer is pretty close. If it is wrong then I will learn something new (like I haven't been trying to learn something new for two days.. LOL), but I'll stick my neck out.<br /><br />I put my answer below in "stealth mode" from the FAQ so it wouldn't be a spoiler for those still working on it. To see my answer, highlight the space between the lines below.<br /><br />SPOILERSPACE_________________________<br /><font color="#5D6F80"><br /><br />My answer: wavelength =.362 meters; frequency= 828 meghahertz<br /><br /></font><br />END SPOILERSPACE_____________________ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

http://www.hostsrv.com/webmab/app1/MSP/quickmath/02/pageGenerate?site=quickmath&s1=equations&s2=solve&s3=advanced#reply

 

[bobw]

LOL!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">© Copyright 1999-2006 QuickMath. All rights reserved. Don't be a doofus.</font><br /><br />What answer did QuickMath give you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />So if the gravity is a million times a million times a million g= 10E18 g at the event horizon: what is the average wave length of the "glow", one light year from the black hole? Neil </i><br /><br />I would think you would have to be at or near the event horizon, to see the glow. Or, maybe physicists will see it at Cern next November, while looking for mini blackholes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

CERN .right you are.Ishall look into Kips book.

 

[alokmohan]

Ths may help you.http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

 

[alokmohan]

All things in the singularity.

 

[kyle_baron]

I think that the matter in a black hole could be at an edge, within our universe. This could mean that it is in another dimension. It certainly isn't in our cosmic space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - All things in the singularity?<br /><br />I assume you mean all sucked in matter.<br /><br />I doubt it truly is a singularity - see my thread on that, but briefly, the increase in rotation due to contraction of radius should prevent near zero radius.<br /><br />I know, btw, that you are posting in harmony with the standard model.

 

[newtonian]

kyle_baron - Interesting reply.<br /><br />BTW - I haven't responded because lightning fried my phone service - just now repaired by Bell South.<br /><br />Well, edge involving other dimensions can be pretty complex.<br /><br />I know some scientists consider that our 3-d universe only experiences a portion of gravity - that much of it leaks into other dimensions (or vice versa).<br /><br />Black holes are caused by gravity - so certainly how other dimensions interact at a point of intersection resembling a singularity is an unknown.<br /><br />However, the gravity of a black hole argues that the mass is still in our 3-d universe as it still exerts the same proportion of gravity to mass it did before becoming a black hole!

 

[kyle_baron]

<i> <br />However, the gravity of a black hole argues that the mass is still in our 3-d universe as it still exerts the same proportion of gravity to mass it did before becoming a black hole! </i><br /><br />True, I said it was in our universe. But, it was at an edge. A black hole only has 1 dimension, once you're past the event horizon, and that dimension is up-down. And the gamma ray radiation at the poles of a black hole, show this up-down dimension. There is no left-right, front-back, or time (because the intense gravitation slows it to nothing). So, I argue that a 1 dimensional black hole, next to our 4 dimensional space/time (above the event horizon) is an edge within our universe.<br /><i><br />Well, edge involving other dimensions can be pretty complex.</i><br /><br />Nope, actually it can be pretty simple, as I explained previously.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

kyle_baron - Interesting.<br /><br />First of all, there is space between the event horizon and the singularity, if the latter really exists.<br /><br />In that space there are all 3 dimensions.<br /><br />A true singularity might be an edge, as you say - if it exists, as I question.<br /><br />The event horizon is an edge in some sense of the word, but matter actually passes right through it - it is from our reference point that it is an edge - similar to our visibility horizon.<br /><br />The black hole jets, including possibly antimatter jets with their peculiar annihilation fingerprint in the gamma ray band, are not indicating only one dimension.<br /><br />Rather, they are where matter, etc., is ejected from the edge so to speak.<br /><br />If rotation is slow enough to allow a true singularity to form, it can indeed have no dimensions of any length.<br /><br />That would be similar to an intersection point of other dimensions such as may have caused a singularity at the origin of our universe - compare collision of branes models.<br /><br />Please note that while the above is in statement form, I realize additional data may refine or even change my mind.<br /><br />That is one reason I llke the science of astronomy since additional data is sought and is found!

 

[alokmohan]

Buts newtons laws are vald upto a limit.I n black hole those laws are not valid.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />First of all, there is space between the event horizon and the singularity, if the latter really exists. <br /><br />In that space there are all 3 dimensions. </i><br /><br />Newtonian, I hope your not thinking of the cone shape of space from the event horizon to the singularity! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The coned shaped space takes place above the event horizon.<br /><br />Any matter that goes past the event horizon is headed straight for the singularity. To move in any other direction, you, your space ship, or matter would have to be moving FTL.<br /><br />This link (2nd paragraph) is another way of saying that the SPACE between the event horizon and the singularity is 1 dimensional:<br /><br />http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11339.html<br /><i><br />The black hole jets, including possibly antimatter jets with their peculiar annihilation fingerprint in the gamma ray band, are not indicating only one dimension. <br /><br />Rather, they are where matter, etc., is ejected from the edge so to speak.</i><br /><br />The Gamma Ray jets are photons (not matter) that are spun out of the blackhole. Plasma (a form of matter) is ejected from the rotating disk (above the event horizon), due to a rotating magnetic field.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

kyle_baron - For whatever reason, the following has not been publicized lately:<br /><br />"Plume of Antimatter Discovered<br /><br />Astrophysicists recently discovered what appears to be a 3,500-light-year-long plume of antimatter streaming out of the core of our galaxy, the Milky Way, reports The New York Times. Antimatter consists of atomic particles that are exactly like normal matter except that they have opposite electrical charges. Contact with particles of ordinary matter results in mutual annihilation and releases powerful gamma rays having a specific energy. Scientists identified the plume as antimatter by tuning the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory satellite to that energy level. As for the effect of the plume, “the astrophysicists said it did not threaten Earth, just their image of the galaxy.” - "Awake," 10/22/97, p. 29.<br /><br />There is a specific fingerprint for antimatter-matter annihilation, as I referred to in my previous post.<br /><br />I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this plume is coming from the core black hole of our galaxy.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />kyle_baron - For whatever reason, the following has not been publicized lately: <br /><br />"Plume of Antimatter Discovered <br /><br />Astrophysicists recently discovered what appears to be a 3,500-light-year-long plume of antimatter streaming out of the core of our galaxy, the Milky Way</i><br /><br />Interesting that you should mention this. My latest issue of S&T (December) has an article concerning this information. They don't call it antimatter, but dark matter. Basically, the 511-keV Gamma Rays have a millionth of the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito. This isn't much, but it's hundreds of thousands of times more energetic than a visible light photon. The 511-keV emission is the telltale signal of electrons colliding with their antimatter counterparts: positrons. An earth's worth of antimatter is annihiliated in the galactic center every 100,000 yrs. Just like our familiar matter, dark matter feels gravity, so it should settle into the galactic core. I believe "antimatter plume" shouldn't be used. Dark matter is what the article suggests. Apparantly, anything antimatter would be annihilated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>