What is a "Black Hole" my opinion

[Neil Fountaine]

Has anyone though about a Black hole is this way? When a balloon explodes, something takes it's place.
May be, when a star explodes, DARK MATTER takes it's place. Therefore, this might be the reason NO one can fully explain what a Black Hole is or is not.

 

[sam85geo]

I don't see the analogy. I.e.: Dark Matter is itself undefined, and indicated by gravitational attraction. If a star exploded and was "backfilled" by Dark Matter, or conversely created Dark Matter, those events should be measurable as changes in gravity via gravity waves. However, Black Holes appears to have gravitational attraction indicative of massive ordinary matter.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

I don't see the analogy. I.e.: Dark Matter is itself undefined, and indicated by gravitational attraction. If a star exploded and was "backfilled" by Dark Matter, or conversely created Dark Matter, those events should be measurable as changes in gravity via gravity waves. However, Black Holes appears to have gravitational attraction indicative of massive ordinary matter.

For arguments point, than what is the matter in the Black Hole?

 

[sam85geo]

I don't know definitively what matter or type of matter is inside a Black Hole. I really wish that there were some "hard data" to that effect which could be verified by experiment somehow. Your analogy had me thinking early this morning. E.G.: Could Black Holes actually be recycle mechanisms that change ordinary matter into Dark Matter? Is ordinary matter interchangeable with Dark Matter under certain conditions? How could any increase or decrease or no change in the estimated amount of Dark Matter in a galaxy be correlated with the gravity waves from merging Black Holes in that galaxy? Such questions are well above my amateur "Pay Grade" especially after only two cups of coffee. I really need to do further reading. Additional insightful, factual comments on this thread, I would appreciate.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

I'm sorry, but, I think there can be NO factual comments as no one really knows what a "Black Hole" is made of.
So, in my opinion, the power that is released when a star explodes could do something that science has yet been able to explain.
If there is thing such as "Dark Matter" and science has yet to prove what a "Black Hole" is, couldn't a "Black Hole" be "Dark Matter"?
I love coffee too.
Nothing personal, just my opinion, thank you

 

[sam85geo]

I really appreciated your comments. You got me thinking about Black Holes and Cosmology. I'm now getting back to some reading/education courses that I've really put off doing for too long. Thanks.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

One other thing I just read somewhere off my phone was an article that said Black Holes have a charge. Now, it did not explain, what a "Charge" is so I'm assuming positive negative charge? I have more questions than answers about a Black Hole.

But could an exploding star violently, in the vacuum of space, cause an effect like a sucking in of Dark Matter to fill the void?

My thinking is that if you don't ask the question, the answer will always be dangling in your mind. Thank you

 

[vincenzosassone]

I'm sorry, but, I think there can be NO factual comments as no one really knows what a "Black Hole" is made of.

I agree. We can't know a lot about them and we also have to remeber that it is hard get them close. Anyways, now I want to use my knowledge to give one of the best answers to this question. Firstly, we know that the second object most massive of the universe is neutron star. Neutron stars are made of neutron, and for this reason they are very heavy. The atoms that combound them underwent process of annihilation and their electrons decayed on the nucleo. All the protons with electrons made other neutron and we have a huge amount of neutrons. But why am I talking about them? There is an important reason: they are known for their density, and are surpassed only by Black Holes. Thus, we have an important type of object with an enormous mass: neutron star, and we also know their structure, but the most important thing to observe is the composition, they are full indeed. I really don't think that there are objects in the universe more filled than them. Finally, Black Holes aren't made by matter as we know it because they would be more massive than neutron stars, something of impossible. There is all there is to say, I know that I used many word to say few things, but this is what I think.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

vincenzosassone, in my opinion to me you did not give me an answer to a Black Hole. And, if you say, "Finally, Black Holes aren't made by matter as we know it because they would be more massive than neutron stars, something of impossible." Then, we don't know what the Black Hole is made of. Thus my theory of a Black Hole is made up of Dark Matter may be factual, it May be even "Compressed" Dark Matter for all we can conjecture.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

I am thanking everyone for helping me get an answer

 

[IG2007]

Simple answer, blackholes are places of nowhere. Like, they are nowhere but still they exist and that's what has perplexed, is still astonishing, and seems that it will continue to surprise astrophysicists and astronomers alike for at least another 25-30 years.

May be, when a star explodes, DARK MATTER takes it's place.

If it were really that simple, we would have already got what dark matter is 5 years ago. Present studies suggest that dark matter is more related to blackholes rather than supernovae. Rather say, more related to gravitational waves of blackholes.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

IG2007
Exactly. And so I'll continue with what is Dark Matter? Nothing.

 

[Helio]

I'm sorry, but, I think there can be NO factual comments as no one really knows what a "Black Hole" is made of.

If we require science to only address truths and absolutes, then you're correct. But over the centuries, we found a system that helps us have a conversation with Nature that allows us to better understand, with limitations, what explains what we observe.

Science is objective-based, so facts are its foundation. With facts we can form ideas, but the best ideas will be the ones that best describe the objective evidence, and makes predictions we can test. This idea is either a hypothesis or, if far-reaching, a scientific theory.

We can't go into BHs then come out of the EH (Event Horizon) to bring us facts as not even light can escape. But we can infer some of the things that we can't see.

Indeed, look how a black hole was first discovered. The only explanation for what was being observed -- x-rays from a very active accretion disk swirling around a tiny spot of darkness -- was a BH. Schwarzschild theorized that they might exist, though Einstein questioned that idea.

It's impossible to see the light from a blackhole itself, but we can, now with abundant observations, infer it's existence. We also can't see the Sun at night, but we have a great idea where that bright thing is at all times, nevertheless. Direct observations are always preferred, but indirect ones can work fine as well.

Questioning was is factual and what is not is the right approach to all science, but know absolutes aren't likely going to happen from whatever pieces of the puzzle you manage to acquire.

 

[Helio]

Thus, we have an important type of object with an enormous mass: neutron star, and we also know their structure, but the most important thing to observe is the composition, they are full indeed.

Yes, in the context of directly observable objects.

Finally, Black Holes aren't made by matter as we know it because they would be more massive than neutron stars, something of impossible.

BHs force us to rethink what we are calling mass. Our experience in picking up stuff like rocks and furniture is one definition. But formally it is how something reacts to a gravitational field. [I'm trying to lose weight and the scale said I only lost a little, so I know (objectively) that I did lose a little mass. ]

There are two important barriers a stellar core has in order to oppose its core from collapsing into a BH. But the mass of the star's core will determine the outcome.

The first barrier is about electron action (degeneracy) -- it's not just an electric field due to electron density but more complicated -- that opposes the collapse. This gives you a white dwarf. Our Sun's mass is such that this is its final state for its remaining core.

But, if more massive, this barrier will very quickly give way to the more massive core (and stronger gravity) to bring it to the next barrier where something happens with the electrons combining with protons to form neutrons, but they are really going nuts in there and you don't have mass of pure neutrons. Regardless, this will produce a force that counters the extreme gravitational field it has, and it will never collapse into a BH, unless its given more mass, which would thing give us....

A BH, where the gravity, due to more mass, overcomes all other forces and it collapses into, many think, a singularity. But perhaps it comes incredibly close to one instead.

I hope this helps frame BH questions you can ask Dr. Pesce tomorrow regarding BHs.

 

[Neil Fountaine]

You all have great text book answers of a "Black Hole" and they are mostly theories. "Dark Matter is my theory. Think out of the box
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein
Thank you

 

[Helio]

"Dark Matter is my theory.

Theories are fun, but scientific theories require objective evidence (facts). What facts and what arguments leads you to your "theory"? Dots need to be connected in some logical way that leads to a reasonable conclusion, and one that can be tested.

 

[IG2007]

Dark Matter - there are proofs that they exist. But no one knows what are they. That's the point. And, until and unless you have any observations that can lead to your conclusion, @Neil Fountaine , I am sorry to say that I can't support you. I am sorry.

 

[vincenzosassone]

made by matter as we know it

Okay, maybe I didn't manage to explain it in a good manner, I'll try to do it better: made by matter in the shape, form that we know. How can I put it, matter is always the same that compose the Universe, or better, the precedent objects in the Universe that turned into this Black Hole.
In other words, we are ok in all the fields until Black Holes join us. They destroyed all the phisical laws that we know...

BHs force us to rethink what we are calling mass.

This is another sentence that perfectly suits with my thought, I don't know how to explain it better, but I'm sure that now I expressed very well.

Exactly. And so I'll continue with what is Dark Matter? Nothing.

To tell the truth, I disagree with the most of your thought, but for me this is possible.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO a black hole is a compression of quantum Fluctuation.
Since the quanta distance is set in the universe when you compress it you also compress time/activity/space.
A black hole is compressed matter that would like to compress forever but the compression of time/space/activity slows that compression forever.
Reason a black hole doesn't shrink forever and become an infinite point of mass and consume the entire universe.

Not a mystery object with strange physics breakdowns, just a compression of quanta distance self regulated as compression grows.

JMO

 

[vincenzosassone]

Reason a black hole doesn't shrink forever and become an infinite point of mass and consume the entire universe.

Black Holes can't do it. Excuse me if I interrupt your thought, but in my opinion this isn't true at all. Primordial Black Holes, for instance, are very old and they don't work very well. I heard a news stated that PBH were particular types of Black Holes because their old age and their bad function. When an object fell down, instantaneously it was pushed back, I don't know how but it would be rather an interesting explanation of their death: they finish to grow up and, because of Hawking radiation, they begin to shrink. I nearly forgot: Black Holes aren't made of matter!
Now, I'll explain it in greater details. As we already know, they are point so, so dense, and this is right. But if you want to talk about them, you must say they are desert regions, places where there is nothing. Matter simply disappear through these Black Holes. This is litterally all what I know.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Black Holes can't do it. Excuse me if I interrupt your thought, but in my opinion this isn't true at all. Primordial Black Holes, for instance, are very old and they don't work very well. I heard a news stated that PBH were particular types of Black Holes because their old age and their bad function. When an object fell down, instantaneously it was pushed back, I don't know how but it would be rather an interesting explanation of their death: they finish to grow up and, because of Hawking radiation, they begin to shrink. I nearly forgot: Black Holes aren't made of matter!
Now, I'll explain it in greater details. As we already know, they are point so, so dense, and this is right. But if you want to talk about them, you must say they are desert regions, places where there is nothing. Matter simply disappear through these Black Holes. This is litterally all what I know.

And that is the problem of classical black hole theory.
Once matter is compressed beyond the nuclear force nothing in the universe can stop it from continuing to shrink instantly and become infinite in mass.

Hawkings idea of radiation escaping is quaint but takes into no part the reason a black hole stops shrinking is size.
Or is shrinking so slowly we can't detect the shrink.

Either physics is wrong or black hole theory is wrong since we see no black hole in the universe collapse infinitely and consume the universe.

Proof that a black hole is a compression of time is the simple fact that black holes occupy different sizes in the universe so something controls them compressing and since the last force (nuclear) isn't it, then it must be a compression of time/space/activity.

We have everything from earth size black holes to solar system size black holes and no one has questioned why the difference in size.

Nothing can escape a time well and an ever increasing time well stops/slows forever a black hole shrink nicely as the last mechanism possible.
JMO

 

[Helio]

I heard a news stated that PBH were particular types of Black Holes because their old age and their bad function. When an object fell down, instantaneously it was pushed back, ..

I've not heard of this, but I'm a rookie at PBHs. Do you have a source reference for this?

I don't know how but it would be rather an interesting explanation of their death: they finish to grow up and, because of Hawking radiation, they begin to shrink. I nearly forgot: Black Holes aren't made of matter!

But matter formed them, right?

Now, I'll explain it in greater details. As we already know, they are point so, so dense, and this is right.

To "know" means to me that it's something we have directly tested or can test it in principle. What test will convince us that the center of a BH will be smaller than, say, an electron? The idea is that it's a singularity because to have size at all means some force would have to keep it from becoming a singularity and that force is not known, but physics also doesn't know much when infinities are the results of the equations. It's still a mystery, but perhaps something better than mere speculation.

 

[Helio]

And that is the problem of classical black hole theory.
Once matter is compressed beyond the nuclear force nothing in the universe can stop it from continuing to shrink instantly and become infinite in mass.

That's logical, but not testable, right? We can suppose this to be true, but infinites come with their own headaches, no doubt.

Hawkings idea of radiation escaping is quaint but takes into no part the reason a black hole stops shrinking is size.
Or is shrinking so slowly we can't detect the shrink.

The rate is dependent on the mass. The fear that CERN would create a micro blackhole that would become all-consuming was proved to be a false assumption. Any micro mass BH immediately evaporates.

Either physics is wrong or black hole theory is wrong since we see no black hole in the universe collapse infinitely and consume the universe.

A BH doesn't increase in gravity, but only increases in its field density. If a magic wand turned the Sun into a BH, the orbit of planets would remain just as stable now as before. The mass of the, now dark, Sun would be unchanged so the gravitational field at the planets would be the same.

We have everything from earth size black holes to solar system size black holes and no one has questioned why the difference in size.

You will find that each example comes with a specific mass. The black holes at the center of the galaxy are called SMBHs (Supper Massive Black Holes) because they have masses sometimes in the many billions of solar masses.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

That's logical, but not testable, right? We can suppose this to be true, but infinites come with their own headaches, no doubt.

The rate is dependent on the mass. The fear that CERN would create a micro blackhole that would become all-consuming was proved to be a false assumption. Any micro mass BH immediately evaporates.

A BH doesn't increase in gravity, but only increases in its field density. If a magic wand turned the Sun into a BH, the orbit of planets would remain just as stable now as before. The mass of the, now dark, Sun would be unchanged so the gravitational field at the planets would be the same.

You will find that each example comes with a specific mass. The black holes at the center of the galaxy are called SMBHs (Supper Massive Black Holes) because they have masses sometimes in the many billions of solar masses.

A black hole being just a time well resolves many of the mysteries of black holes.
As a time well size will appear since compression is slowed no matter what size a black hole is.
Also answers why when we go beyond the nuclear force a black hole simply doesn't collapse into an infinite mass point and put infinite gravity into the universe and consume it.

Hawkins radiation might be true or it might not but in a location that is nothing more than a time well it doesn't matter since nothing will escape an ever increasing time dialation.

Proof i think is the fact that black holes have different sizes, not mass but size.
Why black hole A is size of earth and black hole B is size of solar system when the nuclear force on both is overwhelmed in the exact same amount .
That fact with classical black hole theory has no good explanation.
As a time well it's simple time compression/mass math.

We see no infinite mass points in the universe so classical black hole theory is missing some goodies that stop or slow them forever.
Quantum compression or time compression could be the last thing that stops a black holes collapse.
They still collapse it just takes forever to happen.

JMO

 

[Helio]

Quantum compression or time compression could be the last thing that stops a black holes collapse.
They still collapse it just takes forever to happen.

Normally it is observers outside the regions of greater gravity that observe a slower clock but perhaps you are on to something there where, at some immense level of concentrated gravity, time itself interferes with normal events, preventing an actual singularity.

 

[vincenzosassone]

I've not heard of this, but I'm a rookie at PBHs. Do you have a source reference for this?

I searched for it for an hour, I think, but I did't managed to find out the correct source. Tomorrow I'll search it on Quanta Magazine even if I remember it on this forum...
If I find this, I can unlock this situation.

But matter formed them, right?

Of course! They are formed by very huge stars or by neutron stars that are going to "die".
The real problem here is that then matter disappear... Black Holes can be portals to other universes or dimentions...
I nearly forgot, while I was finding the source, I discovered an article where there are PBH explained in great detail!

What are primordial black holes? | Astronomy.com

Although astronomers haven't yet proven they exist, primordial black holes could answer some of the current outstanding questions in astronomy, including the nature of dark matter.

astronomy.com

I don't know if this link is put correctly, for this reason I want to say you that is easy to found on google with "What are Primordial Black Holes"

To "know" means to me that it's something we have directly tested

Come on, I wanted to refer to Human knowledge...

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Normally it is observers outside the regions of greater gravity that observe a slower clock but perhaps you are on to something there where, at some immense level of concentrated gravity, time itself interferes with normal events, preventing an actual singularity.

Simple answer to a difficult question.
I love simple answers

Just longer and longer days as you go deeper into a black hole.
No sigularity and no event horizon just ever deeper compressed fluctuation space of normally set quanta orbits that have nothing between them.
Time compression i think.

Gets us out of that one way infinite collapse beyond the nuclear force that black holes should have.