BLACK HOLES Tutorial based on observations and GR

Addendum to Tutorial:
The first BH candidate discovered was Cygnus X-1 in 1964 and around 6,000 L/years distant.
It is a stellar size BH more than 12 times the mass of our own Sun packed within a volume of around 100 kms according to the last estimates I checked on a few years ago.


Here is a more update summing up of Cygnus X-1
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cygnusx1.html


On the left, an optical image from the Digitized Sky Survey shows Cygnus X-1, outlined in a red box. Cygnus X-1 is located near large active regions of star formation in the Milky Way, as seen in this image that spans some 700 light years across. An artist's illustration on the right depicts what astronomers think is happening within the Cygnus X-1 system. Cygnus X-1 is a so-called stellar-mass black hole, a class of black holes that comes from the collapse of a massive star. The black hole pulls material from a massive, blue companion star toward it. This material forms a disk (shown in red and orange) that rotates around the black hole before falling into it or being redirected away from the black hole in the form of powerful jets.

A trio of papers with data from radio, optical and X-ray telescopes, including NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, has revealed new details about the birth of this famous black hole that took place millions of years ago. Using X-ray data from Chandra, the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics, scientists were able to determine the spin of Cygnus X-1 with unprecedented accuracy, showing that the black hole is spinning at very close to its maximum rate. Its event horizon -- the point of no return for material falling towards a black hole -- is spinning around more than 800 times a second.

Using optical observations of the companion star and its motion around its unseen companion, the team also made the most precise determination ever for the mass of Cygnus X-1, of 14.8 times the mass of the Sun. It was likely to have been almost this massive at birth, because of lack of time for it to grow appreciably.

The researchers also announced that they have made the most accurate distance estimate yet of Cygnus X-1 using the National Radio Observatory's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). The new distance is about 6,070 light years from Earth. This accurate distance was a crucial ingredient for making the precise mass and spin determinations.

Credits: X-ray: NASA/CXC; Optical: Digitized Sky Survey

> Read more/access all images

[personal email addresses removed]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course as detailed by a few professional experts, the angular momentum logically can be inferred to the spacetime within the EH as well as the mass.
The ergosphere [frame dragging] actually results from those indisputable facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what is this 5 kms (for Sun) and 4 meters (for Jupiter)? Is it

a. Schwarzschild Radius
b. Corresponding Diameter
c. Corresponding Volume
d. Corresponding Surface Area
e. or Hot Potato

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your dishonesty is beyond reproach....Still I suppose that's par for the course for someone with nothing.
What I said.....

In other words we use Schwarzchild radius.[but I was being pedantic..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are reported. You come forward and tell the forum how have you arrived at 5 Kms (for Sun) and 4 meters (for Jupiter).

 

What you do is your business.
I suggest again you read my posts. my claims stand as does the tutorial..

 

Some points in summing:

[1]In line with explaining the effects on matter/energy and spacetime, plus the laws of physics and GR, BHs are a logical conclusion, and at this overwhelmingly thought to exist by most astronomers.

[2] BH's have no more than three properties often called the "no hair theorem": Mass, Spin and Charge.
Charge is negated rather quickly, while spin over much longer periods.

[3]The EH of a BH is the point of no return and where the escape velocity equals "c"


[4]Although no information can cross beyond the EH, we are allowed to logically and reasonably assign properties such as angular momentum to the spacetime making up the BH, and the mass.


[5]Every mass has its own Schwarzchild radius, beyond which compulsory collapse to BH status is inevitable.

[6]No observer will ever see anyone or anything cross the BH EH due to gravitational time dilation.

[7] From the PoV of a person falling in, and ignoring tidal gravity effects, he crosses as per normal with no time dilation of any sort.

[8]The effects of tidal gravitation will overcome all other forces, including the strong nuclear, on its one way trip to the EH, and depending on the criticality in the spacetime curvature of the BH.

[9] BHs come in three general sizes: micro/quantum size BHs that are thought to have been created at the BB: stellar size BHs: and SMBHs of gigantic proportions and most probably residing at the heart of most galaxies.

[10]BHs can come in three types: Schwarzchild, a BH with only mass but no spin or charge: Kerr-Newman: A BH with mass, charge and spin: and a Reissner-Norstrom, a BH with mass and charge only:

[11] Hawking radiation, a quantum effect not as yet observed, but a reasonable extension of particle pair production, act to evaporate the BH over time. Those time scales are immense and compare to the projected life of the universe.

 

I certainly hope the mods/James take the appropriate action with you and your pedantic nonsense.

 

This is how you convert the mass of an object from kg to meters. For the sun it's
1.989E30kg x 7.424E-28m/kg = 1477m
The Schwarzschild radius is r=2M so for the sun it's 2954m. For Jupiter it's 1.898E27kg x 7.424E-28m/kg =1.40907m which makes the Schwarzschild radius 2.81815m. The unit conversion is M_meters=G/c^2 m/kg.

 

Yep, thanks bruce, what should be noted but ignored by our childish dummt spitting friend is the use of the words in all my claims of "around" and "approx"

 

There's a bit of an error in this wiki on Cygnus X-1. In the first section it states that the best prediction for the mass of Cygnus is 14.8 solar mass. Further down in the text they predict r_horizon would be 44 km. That's what it would be if Cygnus was non rotating. They forgot to account for the angular momentum. Cygnus X-1 rotation parameter, a, is .75 so
r_horizon = M +/- (M^2 - a^2)^1/2 = 1.6614M note that when a=0 r_horizon = 2M.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
Check out query 3 and the discussion about the Cauchy horizon in the next paragraph.
This is the wiki on Cygnus X-1.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1
That puts r_horizon for a 14.8 solar mass black hole with rotation parameter, a, .75 at approximately 36.55 km.
The geometric units work great for stuff like this. Black hole physics.

 

Nice post bruce and have bookmarked the "Taylor" paper.
The discussion on Kerr metric BHs reminded me of the problems we had with rajesh a while back, and his claim that only the ergosphere was spinning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have not been following the thread much, so I don't know all of the detail behind the portion of your post I did not quote, I'm guessing almost 3/4 of the post.., but it seems more an emotional response to something, rather than anything to do with the science.., or even speculation about the science.

On the above quoted portion, I would be interested to know, if you even took the time to think about what you yourself stated? You do know the difference between a Schwarzchild radius and the radius or diameter of a fully formed black hole....? Don't you? ..... I mean are you talking the event horizon of a rotating or non-rotating mass, some physical surface or volume you imagine there might be......, or what..... I cannot imagine myself.

Are you deliberately intermingling concepts, just for the sake of argument?

By the way, though I don't agree with everything paddoboy posts, I accept that he is getting it from credible sources.., just as, though I don't agree with all of Bruce's conclusions, I accept his math because he has proven first that he understands it and second that he is willing to admit mistakes and correct himself when needed... So tell me how did you come up with the numbers quoted above.., and the way you put them together in a critical post? ... Credible reference or did you do the math yourself?

 

Just a bit of pedant bruce. Cygnus X-1 was our first BH candidate in 1964, yet our first confirmed Pulsar/Neutron star was not discovered until 1967 by Jocylin Bell.
The first QUASAR discovered in 1963 by SChmidt.
What a period of great discovery in Astronomy??
I had not long left school and these discoveries started my interest in astronomy/cosmology.
The reason I bring this up was that both BHs and Neutron stars had been theorised 20 or 30 years before. Fred Zwicky I recall played a major role.
Another example of the great predicitve power of true science that such enigmas as BH's and Neutron stars are theorised long before their validation.

 

We may have had some differences in the past OnlyMe, but from what I remember, most all were based on the "certainty" or "theoretical" aspect of what was discussed.

And yes, I did learn from your more cautious approach.
Which is why I always encouch my near certainty about BH's existence, with the facts that we are unable to explain any other way, the effects caused on matter/energy and spacetime within their vicinity.
Your questioning of "the god" posts and their genuine or otherwise nature are close to the mark in my opinion.
Check out the questions/doubts he raised at his post 3.
I saw them as not really in the true spirit of my tutorial and pedantic in the extreme in other circumstances.

Of course we'll probably disagree again in the future, and again I'll certainly do my honest best to support what I have to say.
Your best quality from my observation is your honesty, and I would certainly hope that can also apply to myself.
In my opinion the honesty of "the god" is in serious doubt.

 

The God. LOL.

 

I am sure you do not need a credible reference for calculating area and volume of sphere where radius is given. I have given one to Paddoboy, how to find out area and volume of sphere where radius is given.


As early as Post #6, I have given below calculations,

Paddoboy questioned this. Brucep gave the similar calulations in Post #49, and the radius figure tallied to 2.95 Kms.

Paddoboy's claim is that when somehow the 'sun is squeezed to a volume of 5 Kms", its schwarzschild radius is breached, I just want to know what is this 5 Kms, because at this point, when Schwarzschild radius is breached, the parameters are..

Radius r = 2.95 Kms
Diameter = 5.9 Kms
Surface Area = 4*pi*r2 = 109 Sqkms
Volume = 4/3 * pi*r3 = 107 Cubic kms

Till now even after lapse of around 50 posts, Paddoboy is persisting with this stupidity, he is neither correcting himslef nor stating what is this "squeezed to volume of 5 kms". May be you can ask him.

 

57 posts and this makes 58......
What I said I stand by. I'm not interested in your agenda laden vengeful attacks on me because of your many past failures.
again I reiterate
↑
GR tells us that once any massive object is forced to undergo collapse, once it reaches a point called the Schwarzchild radius [which for a BH is the EH] then further collapse is compulsory. This means that if we squeeze the Sun into a volume of around 5 kms, it would reach its Schwarzchild radius, further collapse would continue and it would become a BH.
↑

I said if you squeeze Jupiter to within a volume of approx 4mtrs, it would "breach" its Schwarzchild radius. I stand by that. OK?

I suggest you start growing up, but I won't hold my breath.​

 

In case your continued stupidity in the extreme, still blinds you to all I have said.....
I have never questioned the accuracy of your figures...I also have not googled to obtain them as you have......I have given reasonable approximations from memory in all cases and have made it clear that's what they are.

Perhaps you should start checking out my facts on BHs which are all validated by links. I know for a fact that you have disagreed with them in the past and still do. For a start, you do not accept BHs. You are not able to see how tidal gravitational effects can overcome the strong nuclear force, and just about every other fact that I have mentioned in my tutorial, which to your obvious angst, still stands.
Now show some gumption, show some intestinal fortitude, show some credible links to support your stuff and then, maybe you may have a tiny bit of credibility...because at this stage you have sweet f%^$ all.
Dispute my facts with credible links and references, or remain a dunce.

 

Pl do as above and tell us what is this 5Kms and 4 meters, till then you remain dunce only...

Your persistent stupidity no longer amzes me. You are a troll.