Black Hole.... Not so Black

There is a great deal of news about Black Hole, a very imaginative, a very mysterious fire brand item agreed to be invariably present at the center of each Galaxy.

This thread is created to remove the veil of great mystery around this omnipresent but invisible item...

The starter is..

We know that mass creates Gravity, how ? We are not so sure. But there has to be something in the mass which results into Gravity. What are those "Somethings"..

1. Electron / Proton / Neutron
2. Spin of Electron / Proton / Neutron
3. Charge on Electron / Proton
4. Some motion of even smaller fundamental particles..
5. Etc...

The question is Black Hole Gravity has the strength of squeezing the Electrons in the orbit and subsequent strength of even squeezing the Neutrons present in the Nucleus. Would the Gravity remain same under such circumstances ?? Would it not be a scenario that after certain extreme squeezing gravity becomes almost nil and other repulsive forces take control, just exploding the black hole ? Is there any authentic work on this line, or we just presume that a lump of mass irrespective of subatomic particle squeeze will create same Gravity ? Are we loosely relating Gravity with density or there is more to Gravity then density alone ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Invariably agreed"?
Really?
According to computer models and theory, it is not necessary for a galaxy to have a black hole at its center.
t seems very likely that most (if not all) spiral galaxies contain a supermassive black hole.
Galaxies without an apparent nucleus, such as several types of irregulars, may not have a BH core.

Why wouldn't it?

Whut?

Haven't you just claimed that black holes exist (i.e. haven't exploded?)?

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From memory, three giants of the past have done heaps of research, which has been peer reviewed re stars, density and gravitational collapse. Hans Bethe, Chandreskar and Oppenheimer if I'm not mistaken.
For BH's to form, we need to surpass EDP and NDP.
A star may only be massive enough to become a red giant and eventually leave behind a White Dwarf, held up from further collpase by EDP.....
Larger mass stars will neucleosynthesise furthe up the periodic table, go supernova and leave behind a Neutron star, held up by NDP.
Really massive behomoths real neucleosynthesise up to and including Iron/Nickel, go supernova and surpass even NDP.
Then we have BH's being formed.

In summing and in reality, BH's most certainly exist as the amount of evidence supporting them far out weighs the theoretical quantum evidence.
As to the Singularity, this appears to be the only aspect that is in question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't for one minute believe that is your intention.

That question has been answered in the other thread you started to troll this forum with.
But again, you have it wrong.
Gravity exhibits itself when mass warps spacetime...FACT
Why, we do not as yet know......
Simple as that.

 

Probably more a property of spacetime then of mass in my humble opinion.

 

Is there any authentic work???
What do you think cosmologists and physicists have been doing from a 100 years.
Ever heard of Hawking, Penrose, Thorn, Rees, Carter ??
Why do you ignore the work of the many giants of the past, and then come here, and tell me with a straight face, that you don't have an agenda?

 

Ok, this reference is only for wherever Black Hole is expected to be present.

My question is, would the gravity remain same in nature when Electrons and neutrons are squeezed ?? Why would it remain the same when matter itself is getting massacred ?

Please refer the question, it talks about nature of Gravity, when things are squeeze pretty badly.

The question is very simple, if the Black Hole squeezes the mass to an extent that e/n too get squeezed, that means it is changing the fundamental property of the lump of mass. In that scenario will the Gravity demonstrate itself in the same manner ? We know that Gravity is caused due to presence of mass, may be some kind of distortion in the spacetime, now we do not know what characteristic of mass causes this distortion, but Black hole is certainly hitting the mass where it hurts the most i.e changing the basic nature of mass.

 

In other thread (in the later posts) we were mainly discussing the spacetime distortion / curvature. The conclusion was that the mass causes spacetime distortion which in turn reflects into Gravity. The mass is the key causal point for Gravity. If no mass, no distortion and no Gravity. Hope we agree on this.

This thread is started, simply to understand the Black Hole from closer perspective. An object, which is observation-ally (from data) derived to exist, I just wish to understand some fine nuances of this object.

The question in totality is very simple, if the very nature of mass gets changed due to squeezing of e/n, then is it safe to presume that Gravity would continue to reflect itself in the same manner ?

 

The question is simply on the issue only. That is nature of Gravity of Black Holes.

 

No, it's a (series of) pretty clear statement(s) that black holes are NOT "agreed to be invariably present at the center of each Galaxy".

In other words you have no idea.

MASS is what counts. Not "matter".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes.

How do you massacre matter?

If the earth were squeezed into the volume of an atom the graviation attraction between the earth and the moon would not change.

I would agree with that.

No.

Even energy distorts space in the same way that matter does. It takes a lot of energy to distort space to the extent that matter does due to the relationship of matter to energy (E=mc^2).

 

And you implied there should be research into it.
What do you think cosmologists have been doing for a 100 years?

 

And if no spacetime, then no mass and no gravity.....Hope we can agree on this.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I hope that is true.

Yes, I would think so.

 

I may have answered this rather strangely worded question wrong. That answer is that the gravity of a mass will not change regardless of the masses density.

 

Chandra issue was raised earlier also in different post but got drowned out in the din..

You are right, to reach to BH, we need to surpass EDP, NDP.....??.....BH..

Why i have added ?? is that we have not made any observation between Neutron stars (NDP guys) and BH, but there may be something..

Now the question is...

1. EDP limit is fine, because it still maintains the quantum nature of electron, and all the three subatomic particles are intact. So no issues till white dwarf.
2. NDP limit has certain issues, it makes the electron very relativistic, still permits it capture, may be due to extremely high density, it treats electron as fundamental particle (not capable of further split or squeeze, because this aspect is left untouched), and squeezes the neutrons to create Neutron Star.

So in this case at the core, we have not much free electron or proton, it is highly dense neutron gas. Still the very nature of neutron is maintained, so we can say Gravity will sill behave in the same manner.

3. BH, now before we move on to this, the neutron star must further collapse under Gravity, the process is not very clear, but electron (very less), proton(very less) and neutron(majority densely packed) are under severe pressure, and if at all Neutron is made up of another fundamental particles, then it must get split into them and so on, till we get the majority of last in the chain surviving particle, thus changing the very nature of mass.

Hence the question is will this sub particle of neutron (or sub particle of sub particle of Neutron : Take it the earliest generation) demonstrate the same kind of Gravity ?? Is it safe to assume so ?? Is it not quite likely that somewhere beyond NDP but before BH, gravity vanishes or differs drastically ?

 

No question at all about gravity/spacetime curvature, other then degree.......and it is reasonable to assume there maybe another level between Neutron stars and BH's, that being Quark stars...In fact it has been speculated that as one goes deeper into a Neutron star, it may change to Quark Star....Note carefully, SPECULATE: As yet we have no evidence for such a beast.

 

Whoever ever thought that a black hole can be completely black has to know fundamentals of quantum mechanics, Uncertainty Principle etc.

 

any speculation about color of Black Hole ?

 

Answer is simple and elegant. It is not that mass "creates" gravity or vice versa. It is because gravity is an inalienable attribute of matter. Matter can be in the form of electrons, protons or a plethora of ~ons.

Spin does not matter in this case, nor the electric charge.

Tobe visible, an object does not necessarily have a color. More "visibility" is not ocular only. If you can detect the presence of an object by ANY means, you "see" it, so to say.

A "black" hole has a gravity. , no dispute about it. Or is there any?