Black Hole Theory

[livingin360]

Imagine on the other side of the event horizon are particles completely stripped apart and a new universe expands like a expanding balloon.

Mod note: Massive picture replaced with a smaller one.

 

[prometheus]

You're getting confused by the pictures. Black holes are generally static, that is they don't change with time (much). The explansion of the universe on the other hand is a very dynamical space. Just because the pictures have similar shape doesn't mean the two are related. It's like saying an ice cream cone must be a musical instrument because it has the same shape as a trumpet.

 

[river]

“ in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid

The central parsec around Sagittarius A (the galactic center) contains thousands of stars as well as a supermassive BH of about 4 million solar masses. We're talking of orbital dynamics and astrophysics, not fluid dynamics.

your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

 

[AlexG]

your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

And you've got a supermassive BH.

You seem to have an odd idea what the core of the galaxy consists of.

 

[arfa brane]

My Theory of Black Holes:

The universe contains information; information is physical. In fact everything physical including the abstraction we call "energy" is really just information. Then the universe is a channel in which information flows from a sender to a receiver.

Black holes are like a delay function, which hide information from the receiver, all black holes look the same except for the differences in mass. So this mass difference is the information we receive, as if each BH is an unknown message whose only data we can glean is the size or "length" of.

The second picture in post #21 illustrates this theory--the sender is the BB "event", the receiver is us (or the WMAP satellite, or in fact any measuring device). The universe has a maximum efficiency as a data channel, or, data is being sent at a maximum rate--the channel is at maximum information capacity. Black holes store the maximum amount of information that can be contained in any "region" of the channel, and delay its arrival for a greatest possible interval of time.

 

[livingin360]

You're getting confused by the pictures. Black holes are generally static, that is they don't change with time (much). The explansion of the universe on the other hand is a very dynamical space. Just because the pictures have similar shape doesn't mean the two are related. It's like saying an ice cream cone must be a musical instrument because it has the same shape as a trumpet.

Static or not it wouldn't matter the hole shape of the black hole would not change in time and the shape would remain the same. I believe the fabric of space are the bounds and its just space warping in on itself from a large amount of matter hence the vast amount of gravity. The big bang is just seeing the expansion of the matter which was torn apart from the immense gravity to fundamental particles within a black holes tube. Do you understand what i mean now?

 

[livingin360]

Looks like im a little behind in physics. But its a great feeling to make the connections in your brain yourself as if you discovered the concept yourself.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/we-might-be-living-black-hole-scientist-says

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
your not going deep enough into the core

past stars

look into the actual core itself

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

And you've got a supermassive BH.

no you don't

think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repels

You seem to have an odd idea what the core of the galaxy consists of.

different , not really odd , just different

and it makes sense

 

[AlexG]

You seem to have a certain deficiency regarding physics, astronomy, cosmology, and the physical sciences in general.

Perhaps you should do some reading.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy

It's still not a fluid in the sense that water is. It's a plasma which gets increasingly dense as you get further in but it doesn't get that dense. We search for black holes often by looking for the X-ray emissions from the hot cloud of gas swirling down into them. Many fluid mechanics like principles apply to plasma and gases (a gas is a fluid) but it don't get like water or the like.

think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repels

There's no evidence for black holes behaving like that and something tells me you haven't got a formal model of any of this, you're just giving concepts you like the sound of.

The modelling of accretion disks experiencing strong magnetic fields and behaving relativistically is a serious area of research in astrophysics. However, it doesn't support the view you have, that things get compressed into a fluid and becomes incompressible akin to water. Other effects, like heating, relativistic dynamics, tidal forces etc become vastly more important.

Astrophysical plasmas can be very dense (the Sun's many times denser than lead) but those are not black hole situations. Even if an accretion disk compressed to the densities you're talking about (which I don't think it does if memory serves) it isn't stable to collapse like the Sun is, it'll just fall into the event horizon and then its form is irrelevant.

and it makes sense

It makes superficial 'sense' if you don't know much or any of the physical properties black holes have, astrophysical observations or the need to provide quantitative models rather than "I like the sound of this concept". If all you have is superficial concepts it isn't science, it's pseudo nonsense.

 

[Grumpy]

river

in a galactic core of a galaxy we are talking of fluid dynamics because the particles are so closely compressed that the particles act as a fluid

Er...no. Even at the very center of our galaxy(a medium sized one)the distance between the stars circulating around the central Supermassive black hole are still measured in light weeks, months and years. Much like an atom our galaxy is mostly empty space. The Central SMBH has an event horizon about the size of the orbit of Jupiter, on a galactic scale that is a pin prick and the closet orbiting star never comes within a tenth of a light year to it. The rest is empty space with scattered dust and gas clouds. Orbital dynamics are the operative conditions, not fluid dynamics. This is why when galaxies collide they usually pass right through each other, collisions between stars almost never happen. The scattering and distortions are the result of gravity, not pressure or physical interactions.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

cosmictraveller

Then why do black hole go ultra nova destroying themselves and everything within 1000 light years?

BHs don't really explode so much as they evaporate. Hawking says that virtual pairs of particles created just outside of the event horizon are split, one particle going into the BH, the other escaping. This is called Hawking Radiation. For any BH larger than an atom this is all right, it takes millions of years(or billions)to get down to the size where the radiation becomes a flash of particles, for bigger(solar size and above)ones there hasn't been enough time in the Universe for them to appreciably shrink. The subatomic sized ones don't have that much energy, so the final moments can't be called an explosion, more like a pop.

Grumpy

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
into the very center of the globular center of the galaxy ”

It's still not a fluid in the sense that water is. It's a plasma which gets increasingly dense as you get further in but it doesn't get that dense.

yet to get a black-hole at the center of a galaxy , a plasma would get that dense

We search for black holes often by looking for the X-ray emissions from the hot cloud of gas swirling down into them.

or , as I'm thinking these X-rays are because of centrifugal force

Many fluid mechanics like principles apply to plasma and gases (a gas is a fluid) but it don't get like water or the like.

in the galactic core the protons and ions become a fluid

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
think hydraulics

you can only suppress a liquid so far until it acts like a solid and/or pushs back , repels ”

There's no evidence for black holes behaving like that and something tells me you haven't got a formal model of any of this, you're just giving concepts you like the sound of.

galactic jets

The modelling of accretion disks experiencing strong magnetic fields and behaving relativistically is a serious area of research in astrophysics. However, it doesn't support the view you have, that things get compressed into a fluid and becomes incompressible akin to water. Other effects, like heating, relativistic dynamics, tidal forces etc become vastly more important.

Cosmic Plasmas

Astrophysical plasmas can be very dense (the Sun's many times denser than lead) but those are not black hole situations. Even if an accretion disk compressed to the densities you're talking about (which I don't think it does if memory serves) it isn't stable to collapse like the Sun is, it'll just fall into the event horizon and then its form is irrelevant.

above

 

[HectorDecimal]

I was thinking what if we are in a black hole and black holes form within black holes and new universes are born within black holes and the matter is infinitely iterated? If that was the case though it would stop at one point but maybe matter is infinite. If matter is infinite then its just a infinite iteration but each iteration hits a end. If we are in a black hole though how could we find the opening to the black hole that we are in? Would we see the light from the other side? These are my internal ramblings on a potential theory of black holes. If all matter seperates and is broken apart the matter on the other side would be just like the matter was in ours at the beginning of the universe if im correct?

Surprisingly enough, there's a theory out there that has become popular about just that. It's pretty well accepted that all galaxies have black holes and most have a super-black hole near the galacic core. The problem with all of that is there is still controversy over whether or not black holes actually exist as they are defined by Penrose and Hawking, meaning with finite or infinite singularities respectively. Are you familiar with the concept of Einstein 4 dimensional box?

I'll post this to bring the thread back up, then do a little cyberfishin'

 

[HectorDecimal]

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

When a smaller box s is situated, relativity at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same "space," which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other...
Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around. But it must be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other...
The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other. This latter idea is indeed unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought.

The above is from Einstein's own work. I don't remember whether it is "The Theory of Relativity" or another work, but it is his.


How this relates to you black hole within a black hole (Potentially further and further nested) it would depend on the geometry of the entry point. Using AE's references, if s is within S its bounding is what makes the difference concerning its quantum gravitation. Gravitation itself is still controversial in definition, but if s is a condensed packet of S, it will retain its properties. If s is independent of S, it may be crushed or exploded, so essentially broken where chemical bonds especially are concerned. In either case, it would likely be irrecoverable on the other side.

The Wilkenson's Microwave Anistropic Probe brought up above, depicts this to a great degree, but also depicts a closed system where nothing escapes. Still if we look at the event horizon and consider the detectability of pulsars and "black holes" at all, particles must escape to cause enough radiation to allow detection, or we would simply never receive any signals back in that area. Radiation does escape, but information intact is doubtful.

 

[Nicholas Marks]

I am wondering if science has got this black-hole thing right. I was watching Horizon yesterday entitled...'Whose Afraid of a Big Black Hole' and it would appear that many scientists are unsure about them. They appear to be at the centre of all galaxies and have a sliding scale relationship with the amount of mass within each galaxy. Also...what would you expect to find at the centre of a galaxy after a huge, electric storm whipping up a hurrican force that spewed out stars en masse from a cauldron full of dark matter...perhaps a collapsed hurricane in the form of a black-hole???

 

[Nicholas Marks]

No takers then...You can hardly expound a new idea unless someone is prepared to take you to task...rip your logic to bits...show wonderful equations that disprove...what to me ...is an indisputable truth. That dark matter, though in its purest form is invisible and undetectable...is the main thrust behind black-holes and the birth of stars.

 

[livingin360]

Can't really have a debate since i don't have a physics degree. I just go by light bulb moments when i feel like my head exploded. I wonder if we are in a black hole how do we get to the other side? Also where would the other side of the black hole be?

 

[rohIT]

Living in a blackhole? (BH). . . . not too far-fetched IMO . . . there have been much wierder ideas presented on Sciforums. I seem to recall in one of my posts a few months ago - somewhere - I speculated that if we 'lived' in a blackhole everything outside of our BH environ would 'appear' to be receding (expanding) away from us - funny, I guess - . . . .that 'appearances' can be so deceiving . . .

why would it appear as if everything is moving away? i'd rather think it would appear as if everything is static.