Young Black Holes?

[synical]

Well ok I couldn't think of a proper title...<br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure your all familiar with "gravitational time delay", and I'm sure your also familiar with the amount of gravity a black hole exerts.<br /><br />So my question is, does gravitational time delay effect the black hole, more specifically the singularity, itself? And if so, does that mean black holes age very little? While I'm at it, would it have any other adverse effects on black holes?<br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Can you explain gravitational time delay?How you define young black holes?

 

[themage]

Theoretically, time stops at the point of the singularity inside a black hole. I'm not sure what you’re asking exactly, can you be more specific? "Age" is relative, so that’s something to think about.

 

[pyoko]

I think you are referring to relative time by using the made up term 'gravitational time delay', hence asking if it ages very little or not is a non-question. Also, the singularity is a theoretical mathematical construct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[nstars507]

i am not really sure what you are asking but there is very little that can even alter a black hole. with its intense pull really everything else revolves around it... so i wouldn't really say it ages... just acept it as a bottomles pit that sucks in everthing including light... pretty amazing isn't it!

 

[sunforger]

Saw this subject and thought about a very different type of that. <br /><br />I should get off the internet, corruption levels exceeding max.

 

[shadow735]

isnt a black hole just a ball of super compacted matterial with an infinte mass, why do people refer to it as a pit or hole that sucks stuff into it? <br />isnt matter pulled and compacted into the singularity adding more mass to it?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hmmm, well it does not have infinate mass.<br />Each black hole has a specific mass.<br />And the density at the center is not infinite (or all black holes would have infinite mass, which WOULD suck everything in)<br /><br />All a black hole is, is a concentration of mass whose local gravity (or more correctly, distortion of space-time) is greater than the speed of light.<br />Everything inside the event horizon meets that condition, but that is not a point, but a sphere.<br /><br />Yes matter that comes closer to the center of mass than the event horizon is absorbed, but outside of that, it acts just like the sun or earth.<br /><br />It is treated gravitationally as a point mass, since unless the orbiting object is nearly as massive, it acts as one.<br /><br />hope that makes some kind of sense.<br />I'll try and reword it later if I can come up with a way to make the point (pun intended <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) clearer. <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>

 

[shadow735]

since light cannot escape a black hole can we view the actual sphere of the black hole thru any other means to be able to see its shape? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

A black hole's "shape" is inferred by every other body that has mass.<br /><br />Any body of a specific and definable mass will assume a spherical configuration.<br /><br />Its visible properties are not requisite to what its "shape" will take.<br /><br />Further implied evidence is obtained via the visible effects of any galaxy's central massive black hole upon the bodies that orbit it.<br /><br />Using less massive bodies such as our Sun as a model implies that less massive bodies will move on an orbital path that is generally centered on the equator of the central massive object.<br /><br />This creates two distinct frames of reference by which to describe a black hole. Those being what happens inside the event horizon, and what happens outside the event horizon.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[nimbus]

If the space near the black hole wasn't a dirty whirlpool, you'd see something like what gravitational lens galaxies look like, but with a black spot instead of a shiny object. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

You have a number of misconceptions.One is that stellar black holes are not heavier than 15 solar masses.So infinite mass is misconception.

 

[derekmcd]

I believe you are referring to gravitational time <i>dilation</i> in which clock tick at different rates depending on their location within a gravity well.<br /><br />As for the age of a black hole? Well, it is only as old to whomever is observing it (or I should say, indirectly observing it).<br /><br />Does gravitational time dilation have any adverse effects? None that i can fathom. Nothing really <i>can</i> effect a black hole other than falling into it and increasing the radius of the event horizon. <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>

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">And the density at the center is not infinite (or all black holes would have infinite mass, which WOULD suck everything in) </font><br /><br />I believe, according to theory, that the singularity is merely a point in space with zero volume containing any amount of mass as there is no degenerate pressure strong enough to withstand the gravitational collapse. This requires the density to be infinite. Though, I think quantum theories have issues with this. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

Zero volume is not there.You canot give dimension of singularity.If one falls in singularity he may swtrech to lenght of 1 billion km.

 

[nexium]

I think the evidence does not justify some of these conclusions. Tide effects likely do stretch objects that fall into black holes, but a billion kilometers much exceeds the event horizon radius of a steller black hole.<br />Why can't a steller black hole have 16 or 100 solar mass? Neil

 

[derekmcd]

I think that is currently being debated with the discovery of one that is about ~30 solar masses (i forget the name off the top of my head). I would imagine they are probably quite rare or difficult to detect. The majority were likely created early on in the universe before it was riddled with heavy elements that get shed during a supernova. The lighter elements do not shed as easily prior to collapsing. Being created so early on, they would've cleared their neighborhood giving scientists very little with which to find them. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

Event horizon :there laws of physics as we know break down.We mention circumference only.2 oi r is not valid.

 

[shadow735]

if a Black hole feeds off of many many stars wouldnt its solar mass increase over time as it consumes more and more matter? <br />What percentage of a stars matter gets added to the black hole and what percentage gets ejected? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ashish27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation<br />

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">If a Black hole feeds off of many many stars wouldnt its solar mass increase over time as it consumes more and more matter?</font><br /><br />Yes, it would... But you need to realize that stars are not very close together for this to happen. Binary stellar systems are quite common and a black hole can and will feed off its neighbor should that star begin to expand and fall well within the black hole's gravity well.<br /><br /><font color="orange">What percentage of a stars matter gets added to the black hole and what percentage gets ejected?</font><br /><br />I don't think anyone can finger an exact percentage, but an accretion disc (assuming the black hole is still actively accreting matter) is the infalling matter 'swirling' towards the Event Horizon. A rotating black hole swirls the infalling matter around the event horizon at such high speeds that the matter becomes highly energized and superheated (plasma). It is believed a magnetic field created by this superheated, fast swriling plasma launches these x-ray jets (they are detected at the x-ray end of the spectrum) from the polar axis' of the black hole at relativistic speeds. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

Quantum gravity runs the show in black hole.New physics for black hole.See John Wheeler .he is boss of black holes in the universe.

 

[themage]

<font color="yellow"><br />And the density at the center is not infinite (or all black holes would have infinite mass, which WOULD suck everything in)</font><br /><br />I do not think this is correct. Current calculations state that the singularity is of infinite density not because of the amount of mass (its obvious that you can only have a certain mass) but because its packed into a infinite small space.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes#Singularity_at_a_single_point<br /><br />The singularity is in fact infinite based off of current theories.<br /><br /><br />EDIT: Of course I want to add that this is the entire conundrum we are in with combining the 4 forces together, or should I say gravity with the other 3 <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I have a hard time accepting that the mass is infinite.<br />If it was, it WOULD suck in the rest of the Universe.<br /><br />So perhaps it is very very high, but there must be some finite space that it takes up. Perhaps the Planck length?<br /><br />From that WIki article: <br />"But there is an important uncertainty about this description: quantum mechanics is as well-supported by mathematics and experimental evidence as general relativity, and it does not allow objects to have zero size—so quantum mechanics says the center of a black hole is not a singularity but just a very large mass compressed into the smallest possible volume."<br /><br />But my name isn't Hawking, so I could be wrong <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <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>

 

[themage]

That is correct, but one needs to follow either one theory or the other to base how small the singularity is. If you follow relativity it says that it is a point, meaning it is infinitely dense. If you follow quantum mechanics, it states that there is a value associated with the volume of that point, making the density finite. <br /><br />Also, I don't want to confuse people. Density and mass are not the same. Both state that mass is still finite, we are discussing volume and whether it is finite or infinite.<br />