Black Holes...

O.K.

Black Holes; what are they? It is a general rule of physics that information is always preserved, and black holes seem to contradict this. One would assume that the physical essence of anything sucked into a black hole is destroyed. Presumably the information is still intact but it is completely unattainable. If you can never see something or touch it, ever, doesn't that mean that that the information is technically speaking destroyed?

Another thing about black holes; even light cannot escape its grasp. So in essence the velocity of light is insufficient to escape its gravitational pull beyond the event horizon. Would that not imply that the force of gravity pulling the light in has a greater velocity than that of light. Just to make it clear, that light beyond the even horizon is traveling at a negative speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is negative speed ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uhm, I mean if you can imagine that the light is trying to escape the black hole, however the force of gravity is stronger that its velocity, therefore the light has a negative speed (I'm just saying to explain, not trying to say that actual negative velocity exists); imagine a tug of war if you will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just a guess, maybe u mean negative velocity, and velocity only goes in one direction, so negative velocity is it is moving in the opposite direction.

 

the reason we see blackholes is because of the fact that we only see a certain percentage of them, because some of them are close enough to a star to suck in some of the stars matter, as the matter hits the event horizon it releases X-rays, and the X-rays are what we detect.

This is a total hypothesis, but is it possible to prove that you can indeed move faster than light, through using black holes?
If a black hole can suck in light it means that it has enough force to be equal or greater than the force light has behind it, and ergo if u can use that force to propel an object, said object would have more force behind it than light, just how much more is up for debate.

This is a hypothesis i just thought up in the last 5 minutes, i am not trying to pass it off as absolute truth because i am nto in the right area of expertise.

 

they don't exist.


a black hole is no different that the eye of a hurrican. There is no gravity that causes mass to colapse.


it's all BS created by math

And if any has any doubt, then i promise with enough actual homework a small child could call any physics professor a stupid liar!


Black holes, dark matter/energy, higg bosons and gravitons; are all BS, they DO NOT EXIST

 

Whoa. There are black holes; there is dark matter and dark energy. As for the Higgs field which has to exist in the particle model to give particles mass, and the gravitons which are still undetected, they are currently being dealt with by Quantum Field Theory that attempts of reconcile GR and QM. That task may prove impossible for the reason you mention.

As for the OP and the concept that light cannot escape from a black hole, how do you know that radiation is emitted within a black hole. Light requires electrons and electrons require sufficient space to function. Space begins to get pretty cramped inside a black hole I bet. Maybe the electrons get united with the nucleus and radiation is “absorbed” and results in the increase of energy density of the nucleon mass of the black hole and isn’t trying to get out at all.

 

If you want to engage in sematics, sure, one might define "intact but unattainable" as 'destroyed'. What matters is how the singularity defines it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics

I think the overview here is pretty good, a friend of mine helped write and rewrite the article, as well as the main subject article.

Gravitational waves have a speed, c. It's not the 'velocity' of the gravity that causes the effect, rather the speed required to escape the gravitational pull has gone beyond c.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Could you make that more clear than clear?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Thou shalt not add thy speed to the speed of light" !

 

Cabal,
I'm no expert or anything but maybe this will help. You get a black hole once a large enough density is confined into a small enough volume. In other words, if you took the mass of the earth and condensed it into a radius of .00444 meter it will form an event horizon at that radius. The information paradox is not the only rule that a black hole seems to violate. In fact our knowledge of a black hole ends at the event horizon do to its incompatibility with our current understanding of the rules. A man by the name of Stephen Hawking showed that a black hole can release the information it has acquired through a process known as Hawking radiation. Unfortunately the information coming off the event horizon is so "scrambled" that it is indistinguishable from the information that went in. Lastly, gravity is not a velocity but instead a warping of the fabric of space-time. Because its gravitational force is so strong (near the horizon), space will actually warp back around onto itself. Any light trying to leave a black hole will always travel in a strait line. As a photon travels in what it considers to be a strait line, it is actually following a curvature of space that never exits the event horizon. A common misconception says that if the sun were to become a black hole that all of the planets would be pulled toward it. This is not true. All of the planets would orbit just as they always have. The intense force of gravity does not become noticeable until something gets to close to the event horizon.

 

Ah, I think I understand the gravity part if it. It just seemed like, at the moment that is, that the force of gravity was stronger than the velocity of light. Like the gravity of Earth, lets say: if Earth had no atmosphere then any object, be it a feather or entire building, from a certain distance, would accelerate and reach a maximum velocity and they would be the same.

Anyway it seemed to me that light was falling into the black hole faster than the speed of light, is what I meant to say.

Acitnoids: I know about the Schwarzschild radius. I have fun calculating what sizes different things would have to be compressed into to become a black hole

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Someone mentioned the Higgs Boson particle, and that got me thinking. If Einstein's theories are correct and that indeed energy and mass are the same thing, apart from that mass becomes physical through the Higgs Boson particle, then perhaps what happens in a Black Hole is the reversal of that procedure?

 

A dismantling of the structure of mass, negation of mass into energy as the core of the BH reaches some naturally prescribed maximum energy density. It is open for discussion if energy at that density could be composed of any mass at all. If gravity is a function of mass then when mass ceases to function then gravity would cease to function and the black hole could reach some equilibrium where the increase in mass due to accretion into the black hole is offset by the negation of mass at the core. Just ideas.

 

Is energy incapable of exerting a gravitational pull?

Maybe I should pick up a physics book for once in my life

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Though perhaps I like this topic in particular since it is a complete unknown, and anything can be possible.

 

In the General Theory of Relativity there is equivalence between mass and energy so you would think that energy exerts gravity in GR. However, in GR if you keep it separate from Quantum Mechanics, i.e. above the Planck regime, then gravity is not energy it is the curvature of spacetime by the presence of mass. Mass can only exist in QM if there is a Higgs field. GR and QM have not been reconciled and there is a huge difference in the supposed amount of energy in the universe between the two.

Quantum Field Theory is the current effort to reconcile the two and the hopes of doing that are placed in the LHC. If the Higgs mechanism is detected then there is a cause of mass and the energy deficiency in GR is overcome in the Planck regime by the presence of the Higgs field.

If there is no Higgs field, and if mass must be explained in the quantum realm by some other theory, then the standard cosmology and the standard model will go through a period of overhaul. What would be on the other side of that overhaul is speculative.

I agree that this incompatibility and the current QFT make that area of science very interesting.

 

If I had two springs of equal mass and compressed one of them while leaving the other relaxed, the compressed spring will weigh more than the relaxed spring. The increase in weight comes from the energy stored within the compressed spring. This implies that if all the mass in a black hole were converted into pure energy then there would be no change in the strength of its gravitational field.

 

You had to add energy from outside the system to compress the spring. The increase in mass of the spring is the converted energy you exerted to compress the spring isn't it? Energy was converted to mass. If you convert the mass of a black hole to energy then wouldn't the system have to break down due to lack of space to permit the conversion. I'm just thinking that the conversion of mass to energy doesn't happen without a change of the system that is characterized by the presence of the black hole.

 

That is correct but where does the mass of a black hole come from, an internal or external source? What my example shows is that mass and energy are equivalent. The presents of energy gives way to an increase in the measurement of mass. An increase in mass is equal to an increase in the gravitational strength. If there was a change from mass to energy within a black hole (hypothetically speaking) something would have to cause that to happen.

 

So in order to effect the space-time you need mass. Energy on the other hand is unable to effect the space-time and mass in this particular area, however mass is able to do both? I'm no expert at this but it seems like something is missing here, that energy (a crucial aspect pf the universe) has such a diminutive, if none at all, effect.

Though I'm certainly wrong about this, and will get corrected, I enjoy the speculation.

 

Good points. Still, black holes are dealt with in GR as singularities, but in QM there is energy from the Higgs field. I guess the discussion gets complicated because we don't know enough yet to follow the energy and make GR and QM compatible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Mass is energy and the presence of mass in GR is also the presence of an equivalent amount of energy. It doesn't matter to GR is you refer to it as mass or energy, both are said to curve spacetime by their presence. It is just that in particle physics there is a predicted particle that has not been detected, i.e. the graviton. Some how the professionals have to represent the missing energy in some way, whether it is in how mass is derrived from the Higgs field or how gravity is transmitted between objects. That unresolved issue is where the energy is but it is not determined exactly where.

Since there are many questions that are not answered by the standard cosmology and the standard model of particle physics, some speculation is necessary in order to discuss the reconciliation.