Why do we call a balck hole a black hole?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shadow735

Guest
<p>Because its not a hole at all right? its a collapsed star so there is no hole, the stars immense gravity prevents light from escaping so we cannot see what it is.</p><p>Why dont we just call it a Black Star? after all it isnt very scientific to call it a black hole if there is no hole.</p><p>Even though I cant see a black hole I would assume it is a compressed globe that will pull all matter to it.</p><p>Does that make sense?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because its not a hole at all right? its a collapsed star so there is no hole, the stars immense gravity prevents light from escaping so we cannot see what it is.Why dont we just call it a Black Star? after all it isnt very scientific to call it a black hole if there is no hole.Even though I cant see a black hole I would assume it is a compressed globe that will pull all matter to it.Does that make sense? <br />Posted by shadow735</DIV><br /><br />A black star might make more sense, although I don't think the name black hole was meant to be misleading, it's just the name that was given to them when they were first discovered, given their characteristics. </p><p>The other reason why they're called&nbsp;black holes is because there has been some speculation in the past that they are the entrances to wormholes, which might lead to other dimensions or other places in the universe. Additionally, it's been theorized that since their gravity is so strong, they might actually rip a hole in the fabric of spacetime. </p><p>Of course, these are all just theories. To the best of our knowledge, a black hole is just an immense gravity field where, once you go in, you never come back out. That is unless Hawking Radiation is true.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is unless Hawking Radiation is true. <br />Posted by weeman</DIV><br /><br />In which case half of you comes out in very teeny weeny pieces <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
H

halcyondays

Guest
Isn't it also the case that black holes were first inferred or theorized from evidence before they were actually confirmed ?&nbsp; Indeed, I guess by definition it's almost impossible to "see" one, but I think the overwhelming evidence suggests they exist.&nbsp; Moreover, I guess the 'black hole' concept comes from the fact that nothing can escape from within the event horizon (which of course encompasses more space than the object itself), and the phrase has a very clear descriptive ring to it.&nbsp;
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't it also the case that black holes were first inferred or theorized from evidence before they were actually confirmed ?&nbsp; Indeed, I guess by definition it's almost impossible to "see" one, but I think the overwhelming evidence suggests they exist.&nbsp; Moreover, I guess the 'black hole' concept comes from the fact that nothing can escape from within the event horizon (which of course encompasses more space than the object itself), and the phrase has a very clear descriptive ring to it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by halcyondays</DIV></p><p>Black holes were originally predicted as a consequence of General Relativity through the Schwarzschild metric.&nbsp; The term was coined by John Wheeler some 40 years ago.&nbsp; I think you'll find that naming conventions in science don't always precisely describe whatever it may be they are describing.&nbsp; Sometimes the name are more affectionate than anything or simply amuzing.&nbsp; However, over time, they stick and fall into widespread use.&nbsp; Take the "Big Bang".&nbsp; Prime example of a horrible description that leads to many misconceptions, but the name still sticks.</p><p>I forget who it was, but there was a member here on SDC that used to refer to black holes as "hyperdensities".&nbsp; I always liked that name.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
P

Philotas

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because its not a hole at all right? its a collapsed star so there is no hole, the stars immense gravity prevents light from escaping so we cannot see what it is.Why dont we just call it a Black Star? after all it isnt very scientific to call it a black hole if there is no hole.Even though I cant see a black hole I would assume it is a compressed globe that will pull all matter to it.Does that make sense? <br />Posted by shadow735</DIV><br /><br />A black star is a more fitting term for black dwarves; black holes are not stars. The word collapsar is sometimes used for hypernovae; personally, in my uneducated opinion, I think&nbsp;would be a great name since we're dealing with a gravitational collapse of some kind. Stars are also formed out of some sort of gravitational collapse though, so heh. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
The term Black Hole was indeed originally coined by John Wheeler.&nbsp; It was, IIRC, more of a dirty joke than a serious attempt at naming them (I don't believe wheeler was fond of them when they were first proposed).&nbsp; The term did stick however, as it swept through the astronomical community. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In which case half of you comes out in very teeny weeny pieces <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Correct. If we sent an oversized Wonka bar into a black hole, and Hawking Radiation actually happens, then it would come out as a normal-sized Wonka bar! </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
M

majornature

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Because its not a hole at all right? its a collapsed star so there is no hole, the stars immense gravity prevents light from escaping so we cannot see what it is.Why dont we just call it a Black Star? after all it isnt very scientific to call it a black hole if there is no hole.Even though I cant see a black hole I would assume it is a compressed globe that will pull all matter to it.Does that make sense? <br />Posted by shadow735</DIV></p><p>I agree.&nbsp; A black star...after all, that thing is nothing but corpse from a supernova type I explosion...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct. If we sent an oversized Wonka bar into a black hole, and Hawking Radiation actually happens, then it would come out as a normal-sized Wonka bar! <br /> Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>Here's a link to Hawking's original paper titled "Particle Creation by Black Holes".&nbsp; You can find the free PDF on that page.</p><p>Before he gets into the meat of the paper, he gives what has been the popular description in that virtual particles are created outside the event horizon that do not annihilate.&nbsp; Having not annihilated, they are treated as 'real' particles.&nbsp; One particle, having positivie energy, can escape and the other having negative energy is absorbed, thus decreasing the energy/mass of the black hole, thereby decreasing the area of the event horizon.&nbsp; It, essentially, shrinks.</p><p>What I take away from this description is that the area outside the event horizon is what is creating and emitting particles... nothing is coming from the black hole itself.&nbsp; Sort of.&nbsp; Due to conservation of energy, these virtual particles are in violation because they haven't annihilated and returned the system back to its original energy state.&nbsp; That energy must then be "borrowed" from the black hole by the particle with "negative energy".&nbsp;</p><p>In other words, as far as I can tell, it not as simple as a black hole returning mass.&nbsp;</p><p>Hawking, himself, states that this is a heuristic version and shouldn't be taken literally.&nbsp; If you can handle the rest of the paper and give a literal, qualitative description using words, you are on another level.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term Black Hole was indeed originally coined by John Wheeler.&nbsp; It was, IIRC, more of a dirty joke than a serious attempt at naming them (I don't believe wheeler was fond of them when they were first proposed).&nbsp; The term did stick however, as it swept through the astronomical community. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>Welcome back!!!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree.&nbsp; A black star...after all, that thing is nothing but corpse from a supernova type I explosion... <br /> Posted by majornature</DIV></p><p>Type I supernovae have 3 different catagories (at least?).&nbsp; Type Ia, Ib, and Ic.&nbsp; Type Ia is the white dwarf accretion type supernova where the white dwarf explodes completely and leaves no remnant behind.&nbsp; Type Ib and Ic are core collapse, but are different than Type II due to the absorption (emission?) lines.&nbsp; Type II are the ones most commonly referred to as the ones that leave a neutron star or black hole.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

majornature

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Type I supernovae have 3 different catagories (at least?).&nbsp; Type Ia, Ib, and Ic.&nbsp; Type Ia is the white dwarf accretion type supernova where the white dwarf explodes completely and leaves no remnant behind.&nbsp; Type Ib and Ic are core collapse, but are different than Type II due to the absorption (emission?) lines.&nbsp; Type II are the ones most commonly referred to as the ones that leave a neutron star or black hole.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I thought Type II supernovas leave nothing behind.&nbsp; Hmph.&nbsp; So O, B, and A types leave nothing of their existence&nbsp;or do they leave black holes?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Type II leave behind Black holes, or neutron stars, typically (larger tend to leave black holes more). &nbsp;Sometimes they can shed enough mass in the explosion to leave a white dwarf if they're on the smaller side of the "supernova" range. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The term Black Hole was indeed originally coined by John Wheeler.&nbsp; It was, IIRC, more of a dirty joke than a serious attempt at naming them (I don't believe wheeler was fond of them when they were first proposed).&nbsp; The term did stick however, as it swept through the astronomical community. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>I believe the term "Big Bang" has a similar pedigree -- an astronomer came up with the name to satirize what he felt was a ridiculous concept, and it stuck so thoroughly that now everybody uses the term quite seriously.&nbsp; It's a funny old thing, language.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY