What is a "Black Hole" my opinion

Page 2 - 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.
Feb 6, 2021
2
2
15
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: vincenzosassone
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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vincenzosassone
Feb 6, 2021
2
2
15
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
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 :)
 
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
 
Last edited:
"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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
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 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 10, 2020
32
29
60
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jul 27, 2021
174
126
260
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 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).
 
Oct 13, 2020
20
3
15
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.
 
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Oct 13, 2020
20
3
15
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!
The density and structure of black hole and neutron are similar and are created similarly by gravitational contraction by a shocking wave. What Is more interesting, the horizon of events has every atom nucleus, under the first orbit. It is in our central universe only one place where we can create mass from energy (from gamma photon - electron and positron).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 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?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS