What is a "Black Hole" my opinion

[dsarac]

the whole universe is in a state of oscillation at the micro level. Why don't we observe the same thing at the macro level that the universe through black holes oscillates into non-space and back through some other types of "white holes" back into our space.
This raises the question of the big bang, why it happened only once or happens all the time. The second question is where the big bang happened, whether it happened in one direction or in all directions (as in an explosion) and that again means that there are objects more than 13B light years away from us

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

the whole universe is in a state of oscillation at the micro level. Why don't we observe the same thing at the macro level that the universe through black holes oscillates into non-space and back through some other types of "white holes" back into our space.
This raises the question of the big bang, why it happened only once or happens all the time. The second question is where the big bang happened, whether it happened in one direction or in all directions (as in an explosion) and that again means that there are objects more than 13B light years away from us

Time i think is the answer to the question of oscillation.
Black holes are regions that have no room for time to happen, no activity or very slowed activity on the quantum level.
When we break down the universe it's about 99.999etc % nothing and that is matter energy and all.
Big things=many small things, we just don't observe oscillation in big things because we are not looking at what really makes up big things.

What proof do you have that the big bang is the universe?

A better solution to the universe is endless quantum fluctuation that creates matter/energy until it balances energy.
Big bang just 1 in that endless sea of fluctuation and other big bangs, big crunches. partial big bang matter areas ETC.
No start, no end, no real time other than the quantum space.

JMO

 

[dsarac]

A black hole is not a membrane for everything to happen to it and nothing from it, logic tells me that if matter, energy and,.... collapses into a black hole it must produce somewhere under certain conditions, antimatter, antienergy or something else that is not even available for us to think about.
My question is why would this happen in a one way and once, isn't it possible that "somewhere" behind the black hole there is "something", and when it reaches a critical mass, energy or ???? , and it make a "big bang" into this part of the universe that is known to us. These universe is not timeless, it "in theory" came into being at one point because all objects move away from each other.
Black holes hunt for matter and swallow it without posibilities to know what hapened.
Another as I told before if "big bang" happened like bomb it must happened in all directions or it is just as I think just another "white hole" where it comes in our universe
If a big bang happened at one point in zero time and there is nothing to slow down the movement would not all objects be at approximately the same distance from the point of the big bang? except gravitational acceleration / deceleration between objects?

D

 

[vincenzosassone]

The second question is where the big bang happened, whether it happened in one direction or in all directions (as in an explosion) and that again means that there are objects more than 13B light years away from us

This is, in my opinion, the easiest question I can reply. Firstly, This "explosion" that we call "Big Bang" is tridimensional, obvious for me. If it weren't tridimensional, we wouldn't have had the possibility to talk about a tridimensional universe, for this reason this explosion happened in all known dimension. This is also the beginning of the time (our time, there are many scientists argue this isn't the first universe because of the theory of cyclical succession of universes, but this is an other story). Secondly, because of the expansion of the universe, whose rate is given by Hubble constant and Hubble tension (I don't thing that in this thread is important to talk about them) and is also more than the speed of light, there are, of course, objects more than 13B light years away from us. Now I remeber that the verges of the visible universe are about 9 or 90 blion light years away from us, now I don't remeber this precisely.

 

[Catastrophe]

Vincenzo, may I please compliment you on your excellent English, vide:
"If it weren't tridimensional, we wouldn't have had the possibility to talk about a tridimensional universe" My italics. Most English people get this incorrect.

Having posted that, I must say that I cannot agree with a tridimensional model. As is well known here, I favour a (roughly) figure 8 on its side, so to speak. Instead of extrapolating linearly (UGH) back to a socalled BB (I would suggest Big Mistake) I see a transition where dimensions, as we propose them, are probably scrambled. What is on the "other side" is probably unknowable to our limited species at the present time.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A black hole is not a membrane for everything to happen to it and nothing from it, logic tells me that if matter, energy and,.... collapses into a black hole it must produce somewhere under certain conditions, antimatter, antienergy or something else that is not even available for us to think about.
My question is why would this happen in a one way and once, isn't it possible that "somewhere" behind the black hole there is "something", and when it reaches a critical mass, energy or ???? , and it make a "big bang" into this part of the universe that is known to us. These universe is not timeless, it "in theory" came into being at one point because all objects move away from each other.
Black holes hunt for matter and swallow it without posibilities to know what hapened.
Another as I told before if "big bang" happened like bomb it must happened in all directions or it is just as I think just another "white hole" where it comes in our universe
If a big bang happened at one point in zero time and there is nothing to slow down the movement would not all objects be at approximately the same distance from the point of the big bang? except gravitational acceleration / deceleration between objects?

D

If a black hole is no more than a time well then it has no other side.
Just a well of time.
A big bang could happen if most of the universe was in 1 black hole and ran into another similar black hole.
Some physical laws breaks, time gets crunched, an infinite mass point is created or energy simply gets to high for that region of space to hold onto
Lots of ways to make a big bang and given we have forever for this to happen one of them will happen at some point and probably is happening not just to our big bang but the same laws are happening to infinite others.

Think of throwing a penny down a wishing well.
The first inch it falls normally, the next inch takes 10x as long to fall, then the next inch takes 10x it . etc etc.

We don't need a very long well before falling another inch takes a very long time.


JMO

 

[vincenzosassone]

"If it weren't

I really sorry about it, but I don't see mistakes here if you are referring to this words...
I remeber this important construct from my English book, and I also have a photo, if you want to watch it. Anyways, I guess you are native English, for this reason I cannot compare you to an English book, but I want you to know that I study English every day, both at school and by myself before to comment here.

Having posted that, I must say that I cannot agree with a tridimensional model. As is well known here, I favour a (roughly) figure 8 on its side, so to speak. Instead of extrapolating linearly (UGH) back to a socalled BB (I would suggest Big Mistake) I see a transition where dimensions, as we propose them, are probably scrambled. What is on the "other side" is probably unknowable to our limited species at the present time.

Of course, this is a possible solution talking about our Universe. Our Universe can be shaped in all the strangest and most irregular forms that we can imagine, but we cannot recognize this. It could also be a doughnut, but we'll never know it...

 

[Catastrophe]

I really sorry about it, but I don't see mistakes here if you are referring to this words...
I remeber this important construct from my English book, and I also have a photo, if you want to watch it. Anyways, I guess you are native English, for this reason I cannot compare you to an English book, but I want you to know that I study English every day, both at school and by myself before to comment here.

Of course, this is a possible solution talking about our Universe. Our Universe can be shaped in all the strangest and most irregular forms that we can imagine, but we cannot recognize this. It could also be a doughnut, but we'll never know it...

"Vincenzo, may I please compliment you on your excellent English, "
I was saying that I am totally impressed with your excellent English. It is better than many English people. You would be amazed how many people would say things like "If I was wearing a dark suit". Have they never been to school?
I am sorry if you mistook it for criticism. It was totally the opposite.

Cat

 

[vincenzosassone]

"Vincenzo, may I please compliment you on your excellent English, "
I was saying that I am totally impressed with your excellent English. It is better than many English people. You would be amazed how many people would say things like "If I was wearing a dark suit". Have they never been to school?
I am sorry if you mistook it for criticism. It was totally the opposite.

Opss, I'm used to receive many critics by natives English...
I'm really glad to hear this, after all my struggle to achive a good level, now I'm good in this important language and I have the certainty too. Thanks again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Dragrath]

Hmm objectively black holes are a tricky subject because we knw that our current theories of physics GR and Quantum field theory's the standard model break down at some point.

The closest we know our current understanding of physics works is thanks to two of the greatest achievements of the last decade in observational astrophysics the Event Horizon Telescope's marvelous achievement of effectively Earth sized interferometry which sought to resolve the photon sphere or region where the orbital velocity is the speed of light allowing light to orbit around the black hole which is 2.5 times the actual event horizon according to general relativity.

And the detection of gravitational waves by LIGO, a feat even Einstein figured was beyond our capabilities of ever measuring via experiments due to how small the fluctuations of such waves are, offers what is probably the most detailed look at a black hole's properties.
From LIGO's observation of black hole black hole collisions we now know that at the very least Einstein's theory holds up to the event horizon within observational constraints supporting the "No hair theorem" that suggests that black holes can't have any properties other than mass, spin and charge.

Beyond these the properties of a black hole are undefined the equations break down so any further insight requires a combination of the standard model with gravity which thus far has not been achieved.

Now Steven Hawking had a clever "hack" based around a limiting case where a black hole is between two points in the universe bridged by quantum fields . By recognizing the properties within the normal "flat" spacetime he was able to show that theoretically the black hole intercepts a piece of the global wavefunction of the universe proportional to the size of its even horizon. (There is a less accurate approximation based around virtual particles which is mathematically equivalent in terms of Feynman diagrams) Remember that in quantum field theory particles are just the smallest possible propagation of information through a quantum field

This is suspected to be true and there is some evidence to support this in "model" systems which are designed to share an event horizon like barrier which only permits one way flow. But there is no way to confirm this given our current laws of physics at least while well below a Kardashev 2 civilization capable of making a Kugelblitz or artificial black hole via concentrated radiation.

If asking for my specific opinion I suspect Wolfram's computation based multiwave hypergraph model looks the most promising for unifying GR and Quantum mechanics and in this model a black hole is more or less a causal event horizon or a boundary representing a scar where a piece of the universe split off from our universe. In this model there is two event horizons the conventional spacetime event horizon but also a so called branchial event horizon which arises similarly to how the event horizon forms trapping any material from ever falling into nothingness. The original material that formed the initial collapse would be gone as it causally disconnected from the universe effectively becoming an independent system a different universe or something similar. If I interpret this model correctly it seems all the stuff swallowed would be trapped between these layers and eventually reradiated out. Of course since we will likely never find out in our lifetimes what if any is the correct model this is more or less moot speculation.

 

[Lariliss]

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.

1. A difference between black hole and neutron star is that a neutron star would be having a hard surface unlike that of a black hole.
A black whole is described by it's mass, spin and event horizon.
2. With such a signature, we can distinguish between a neutron star and a black hole as neutron stars release emissions from the hard-surface.

Gravitational pull is determined mass and distance. The greater the mass, the shorter the distance, the greater the pull. From the known observed objects till now, a black hole has the most pull.

 

[Catastrophe]

Please pardon the repetition, but it is startling (if you have not seen it already):

https://imgur.com/a/QFvQqGm

View: https://imgur.com/a/QFvQqGm



Cat

 

[vincenzosassone]

1. A difference between black hole and neutron star is that a neutron star would be having a hard surface unlike that of a black hole.
A black whole is described by it's mass, spin and event horizon.
2. With such a signature, we can distinguish between a neutron star and a black hole as neutron stars release emissions from the hard-surface.

3. A Black Hole can't be considered as an object (I don't remember if I have already used this sentence before, I wouldn't be repetitive...)
Anyway, jokes aside. The surface of a neutron star must be different from that of a Black Hole since the two elements are totally different from each other. A neutron star is still an object, a Black Hole isn't. The surface is different as well as every other part of it.
The reason why I talked about Neutron Stars was that they are ones of the most extreme things in the Universe. And besides that, they are also very massive, features of the greatest importance if we want to compare them to Black Holes. However, I understand why you have written that, Black Holes and Neutron Stars can't be compared (even if their formations are very close).

 

[Catastrophe]

What is a "Black Hole" my opinion

Well, what about Stephen Hawking's opinion?

Cat

 

[vincenzosassone]

The black hole is only a big neutron, so have the same density as a particle of mass. The horizon of the event is the end of time-space, and singularity is a mass.

This is strange in my opinion. I would disagree with the sentence "the black hole is a big neutron" but at the same time the horizon of event explained as the end of the space-time, so as part of it, is very interesting!

 

[vincenzosassone]

It is in our central universe only one place where we can create mass from energy (from gamma photon - electron and positron).

So...the inverse process of E=mc^2!

The density and structure of black hole and neutron are similar and are created similarly by gravitational contraction by a shocking wave.

Excuse me, I have always thought that a "big neutron" could only be compared to a Neutron Star...
Neutron Stars, after all, are made of neutrons held together by gravity. At the same time, though, a Black Hole is heavier, isn't it?

 

[iconoclast]

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

Quite a lot is known about black holes, right from Wikipedia and many books for the layman, right up to the definitive general relativity tome of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (look it up). You have no facts to back up your statements, mainstream astrophysics has lots and a framework of understanding of black holes, with lots of experimental verification.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Quite a lot is known about black holes, right from Wikipedia and many books for the layman, right up to the definitive general relativity tome of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (look it up). You have no facts to back up your statements, mainstream astrophysics has lots and a framework of understanding of black holes, with lots of experimental verification.

An ugly fact about studying black holes is they appear a size only because of our perspective.
Time dilation probably is infinite in a black hole but at the event horizon that we see it isn't.
A black hole for sure is a false projection of what is really happening so we might never get real data about them that is reliable from our perspective.

Or time/activity is so crunched in them what we see is what they are just more of the same longer and longer days as you go deeper.

I agree with hawking about no true singularity in a black hole.
Hawking radiation i have my doubt anything can escape the lack of time/activity.

JMO

 

[IG2007]

the whole universe is in a state of oscillation at the micro level. Why don't we observe the same thing at the macro level that the universe through black holes oscillates into non-space and back through some other types of "white holes" back into our space.
This raises the question of the big bang, why it happened only once or happens all the time. The second question is where the big bang happened, whether it happened in one direction or in all directions (as in an explosion) and that again means that there are objects more than 13B light years away from us

We cannot observe through blackholes, not even light can escape or go through blackholes, how can we see through it?

Coming to Big Bang, the Big Bang is not like an explosion of a dynamite, the Universe IS the Big Bang.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

We cannot observe through blackholes, not even light can escape or go through blackholes, how can we see through it?

Coming to Big Bang, the Big Bang is not like an explosion of a dynamite, the Universe IS the Big Bang.

We can only measure the size and mass of a black hole because nothing can escape it but we can measure things going around it.
We can get a size and mass but on a skewed timeline so more information than mass is only perspective.

Is the BB the universe or just 1 BB in a greater universe?
The BB as the universe has the problem of origin.
The BB as just 1 BB in a greater universe can have an origin.
JMO

 

[vincenzosassone]

Coming to Big Bang, the Big Bang is not like an explosion of a dynamite, the Universe IS the Big Bang.

I agree, I would add that the Universe is still expanding.

Is the BB the universe or just 1 BB in a greater universe?
The BB as the universe has the problem of origin.
The BB as just 1 BB in a greater universe can have an origin.
JMO

This made me remember the cyclical theory of our Universe. After the big bang, the Universe is expanding, then, it stops because gravity wins against dark enery, and then there is the big chrunch. After that, another big bang, with another cycle. Anyway, if the origin of the Universe is in itself, and our Universe is meant to continue doing cycles, this means our own Universe is a machin with perpetuum motion...

 

[vincenzosassone]

Then, after a certain threshold everything get philosophy...

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I agree, I would add that the Universe is still expanding.

This made me remember the cyclical theory of our Universe. After the big bang, the Universe is expanding, then, it stops because gravity wins against dark enery, and then there is the big chrunch. After that, another big bang, with another cycle. Anyway, if the origin of the Universe is in itself, and our Universe is meant to continue doing cycles, this means our own Universe is a machin with perpetuum motion...

We might not like the idea that nothing can become everything or that our BB isn't all so regional thinking might be thinking that is wrong.
At least with o=everything we have an origin but we also have an origin for infinite others.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Yes, a system of universes is a machine for recycling mass and energy.

For sure it's an E origin and E recycling problem and not so much stars and everything else we see.
All we see IMO is part of the recycling of E, the behind the scenes quantum machine the recycle can.

 

[Harry Costas]

To understand how matter can mimic the vector forces and create an Event Horizon and thus mimic Black Holes, you will have to understand Condensates and their Trensients.