Matter compression in black holes

[Bolle23]

Hello everyone,
I need someone willing to discuss and disprove my idea on matter compresion (related to black holes) in not condesending way... preferably in a constructive way.
Im astrophysics enthusiast with limited knowledge (please keep that in mind)
Thanks
Best regards
Boris

 

[Bolle23]

Hypothesis Abstract

I propose a unified compacting→release mechanism operating across astrophysical collapse scales: as matter is compressed into ever-smaller regimes, microphysical thresholds or phase changes trigger outward ejection of structured, larger-scale aggregates rather than uninterrupted inward compression. This cycle — accumulation, thresholded compaction, and rejection — can explain episodic mass shedding in stars, jets and clumps from accreting compact objects, and, as the final stage, powerful outflows and spectral signatures in quasars.

---

Motivation

Natural systems repeatedly show a cycle of slow build-up followed by abrupt release. Stellar winds, nova shells, supernova explosions, and relativistic jets are manifestations of this pattern. Extending the same logic to extreme-density environments suggests that when collapse reaches scales where the equation of state or collective interactions change, the system may not compress smoothly; instead it expels structured material formed or liberated during the transition. This reframing links microphysics at ultra-high density to macroscopic ejection phenomena.

---

Core mechanism

- Threshold compaction: Collapse continues until a density, pressure, or phase threshold is reached where compressibility changes sharply. Examples include degeneracy limits, nucleon-to-quark transitions, or emergent collective states.
- Energy release and rejection: Crossing the threshold injects latent or collective energy that drives pressure pulses outward. Rather than homogenously heating ejecta, these pulses preferentially expel coherent aggregates: heavy nuclei clusters, clumped plasma, or quasi-particle assemblies.
- Channeling by rotation and fields: Angular momentum and magnetic fields convert isotropic pulses into collimated jets or directed outflows, enabling efficient transport of mass and momentum over large scales.
- Reestablishment of gravity-dominated state: After ejection, the remaining object relaxes to a new compact configuration where gravity again governs dynamics until the next cycle.

---

Observable predictions

- Nonstandard composition: Ejecta should exhibit unusual abundance ratios and clustering of heavy nuclei consistent with processing at extreme densities and rapid decompression.
- Clumped morphology: Remnants and jets will show coherent clumps or filaments whose mass–velocity distributions differ from purely shock-swept shells.
- Timing linked to compaction rates: Episodicity and energetics of ejections correlate with accretion rates or core compression timescales, producing detectable variability in X-ray and radio bands.
- Polarization and magnetic alignment: Strong polarization signatures aligned with magnetic geometry where collimation occurs.
- Multi-messenger coincidences: Short transient bursts in gravitational waves or neutrinos may coincide with major compacting→release events.

---

Quasars as the final amplification stage

At the largest accretion scales, repeated compaction–release cycles near supermassive black holes can feed and regulate quasar activity. Inner-disk regions and transient compact structures crossing microphysical thresholds will produce powerful, compositionally distinctive, and often collimated outflows. These ejections can:
- Seed broad absorption line systems and heavy-element-rich winds observed in quasar spectra.
- Drive large-scale feedback that sculpts host-galaxy gas through repeated, high-velocity clump injections.
- Produce variability and spectral state changes tied to threshold-crossing episodes in the innermost flow.
Thus, quasars represent the cumulative, large-scale manifestation of the same compacting→release dynamics operative in less extreme systems.

---

 

[Bolle23]

I must add information.. English is not my native language and so i have used AI to shape my idea and thoughts into text i can share with you.

 

[Pinball1970]

I must add information.. English is not my native language and so i have used AI to shape my idea and thoughts into text i can share with you.

Hi Boris

 

[Bolle23]

Any thoughts on a topic?

 

[Pinball1970]

Any thoughts on a topic?

To be honest Boris, The Ai threads are very common and generally not that well received.

In your own words, explain one key part of your idea that is at odds with mainstream and tell us why this has better explanatory power

 

[Pinball1970]

Any thoughts on a topic?

Some maths would be good too if you have it.

 

[Bolle23]

OK, i'll try to explain.
This is not AI generated topic.. this is idea im playing for quite some time, AI just help me to say it in in a nicer way.

I was always bothered with explanation that quasars are just black holes absorbing matter.. why dont we see it closer, we know there are super massive black holes closer than that...
Also i was always bothered by explanation of black holes, more precisely about sinle point in space-time that is infinitely dense and small.. its simply ilogical in my mind. ( i dont say its wrong, simply ilogical for me )
So this made me think..

We see in nature that is full of paterns and repetition..

We know that sun use fuel and that core compacts to denser state over and over again until it reaches iron.. and in every stage of this it sheds some of the material.
We know that at some point (depending on mass) it compress to neutron star, magnetar or black hole.. and in this proces we have also ejection of matter in way of super novae.
From molecules in a gas and dust, to atoms in sun, to neutron cores in neutros stars... why magnetars and black holes couldn't have been made of even smaller particles compacted by gravity?

My whole idea is that when this process of compaction happens and new matter is added, there is ejection of (let me call it bigger particles, because i dont know how to explain it better), matter is being ripped appart and only particles that have reqired density are added to mass and "bigger" particles are rejected. That would explain energy and mass outbursts.

Also it would tell us that black hole isnt just singularity, but that black hole have physical properties (diameter, volume etc)
Also it could explain why we have relativistic jets.. ejection of particles that do not meet density requirements to be added to black hole mass.

And as a final stage, quasars.. a moment when black hole reach treshhold of compaction and is ready to be compressed to even denser state.
But (here it comes) this density (or "particle" size) is beyond size of particle or mechanism responsible for gravity, and at that point gravity stops.
What happens next is violent outburst of mass, energy, radiation...everything.

In this process we could have two outcomes.. either black hole is completely destroyed and all gathered matter is released (like white holes) or black hole size/mass is reduced to size where gravity works again and cycle starts again.

So, do you now understand why I have used AI? When i say it in my words I sound childish.

Best regards
Boris

 

[Bolle23]

Some maths would be good too if you have it.

Sorry, no math from me..But, i would appriciate if someone is willing to test it...

 

[billvon]

We know that sun use fuel and that core compacts to denser state over and over again until it reaches iron

It doesn't really "compact to denser state." It goes through several fusion cycles that burn lighter elements to heavier elements. It stops at iron because it takes more energy to fuse it than you get out. So it has to stop there.

and in this proces we have also ejection of matter in way of super novae.

Sometimes, but usually not. Usually ejection of mass happens due to a solar wind.

why magnetars and black holes couldn't have been made of even smaller particles compacted by gravity?

They are. Often they are atomic nuclei compressed so tightly that there's no space between them. A neutron star is essentially one giant nucleus. (We can't directly observe black holes by definition, but since larger neutron stars are VERY close to being a black hole it's a fair assumption.)

that black hole have physical properties (diameter, volume etc)

They do. They have an effective diameter (the diameter of the event horizon) that can be measured. Their radius, though, is effectively infinite.

this density (or "particle" size) is beyond size of particle or mechanism responsible for gravity, and at that point gravity stops.

But large black holes don't explode. Supernovas do - and we understand why.

 

[James R]

Hello Bolle23 (or would you prefer Boris?).

I was always bothered with explanation that quasars are just black holes absorbing matter.. why dont we see it closer, we know there are super massive black holes closer than that...

You're wondering why there aren't any quasars close to Earth? If there were, then the radiation might be problematic for life on Earth, which might mean we wouldn't be here to see the quasar.

I guess I could look it up, but maybe you can tell me: what's the nearest quasar to Earth? How far away is it?

Also i was always bothered by explanation of black holes, more precisely about sinle point in space-time that is infinitely dense and small.. its simply ilogical in my mind. ( i dont say its wrong, simply ilogical for me )

Physics doesn't say there's an infinitely dense point at the centre of a black hole. We don't have a theory that describes what happens under the kinds of conditions that must exist near the centres of black holes. The best theory we have (General Relativity) produces a singularity at the centre, but that's "just" a mathematical artifact that hints that we need a better theory.

We know that sun use fuel and that core compacts to denser state over and over again until it reaches iron, and in every stage of this it sheds some of the material.

It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, our sun will expand and go through a red giant phase before it eventually collapses to end its life as a white dwarf star.

We know that at some point (depending on mass) it compress to neutron star, magnetar or black hole.. and in this proces we have also ejection of matter in way of super novae.

Yes.

From molecules in a gas and dust, to atoms in sun, to neutron cores in neutros stars... why magnetars and black holes couldn't have been made of even smaller particles compacted by gravity?

Beyond neutron stars, there are only black holes. It's hard to make matter any denser than nuclear densities.

We don't know of any particles smaller than electrons and quarks. In fact, electrons and quarks don't really have a specific size, as such. To picture them as like tiny billiard balls is to ignore the fuzzy quantumness of them.

My whole idea is that when this process of compaction happens and new matter is added, there is ejection of (let me call it bigger particles, because i dont know how to explain it better), matter is being ripped appart and only particles that have reqired density are added to mass and "bigger" particles are rejected. That would explain energy and mass outbursts.

Who knows? Maybe there are types of "bigger" particles that we haven't detected yet. However, all you have there is an idea, so far. It needs to be fleshed out into a testable theory. The theory would need to suggest what properties these "bigger" particles have and how we can detect and measure them, quantitatively.

Also it would tell us that black hole isnt just singularity, but that black hole have physical properties (diameter, volume etc)

Black holes have an associated radius that depends on their mass. The "size" of a black hole is defined by how close light can get to the hole and still be able to escape.

Black holes are spherical (or spheroidal). The volume of space in a black hole is a tricky thing to conceptualise, however, because the geometry of space itself is bent around inside a black hole.

Also it could explain why we have relativistic jets.. ejection of particles that do not meet density requirements to be added to black hole mass.

We can see the jets from black holes and measure the light emitted by them. As a consequence, we have a fairly good idea of what kinds of particles are in those jets.

And as a final stage, quasars.. a moment when black hole reach treshhold of compaction and is ready to be compressed to even denser state.

As I understand it, a quasar is just an active galactic nucleus - typically a supermassive black hole that is surrounded by an accretion disc of infalling matter that powers the emission jets. Am I wrong?

But (here it comes) this density (or "particle" size) is beyond size of particle or mechanism responsible for gravity, and at that point gravity stops.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

In this process we could have two outcomes.. either black hole is completely destroyed and all gathered matter is released (like white holes) or black hole size/mass is reduced to size where gravity works again and cycle starts again.

As far as I am aware, the only way that a black hole can decrease its mass is through Hawking radiation, and that's a very slow process (at least until the hole gets very small). Are you aware of any other mechanism?

 

[DaveC426913]

So, do you now understand why I have used AI? When i say it in my words I sound childish.

All languages sound childish next to mathematics when it comes to describing physical phenomena. That's why math is the only language that can adequately explain them. It's also why it's critical to have those math skills before trying to examine the secrets of the universe.

 

[Bolle23]

It doesn't really "compact to denser state." It goes through several fusion cycles that burn lighter elements to heavier elements. It stops at iron because it takes more energy to fuse it than you get out. So it has to stop there.

So what are you telling me is that Hydroen is not denser than Iron or any of 24 element in between? Maybe i have completely wrong view point on this...

They are. Often they are atomic nuclei compressed so tightly that there's no space between them. A neutron star is essentially one giant nucleus. (We can't directly observe black holes by definition, but since larger neutron stars are VERY close to being a black hole it's a fair assumption.)

Question is.. what are building blocks of atomic nucleai? I was reffering to those... how can we be certain that black holes are not "made" of those buliding blocks, same as we are certain that neutron stars are made of atomic nuclei? You dont normaly have atomic nuclei floating as is in nature, but when it comes to creation of neutron stars, everything else is shed and that is all that is left.. why we cant have one more step in same direction?
Can we be sure that atomic nuclei are on bottom of size scale and that they are one "solid mass" not comprised from smaller "stuff"... smallest building block in observable universe?
Im not convinced to that idea...

They do. They have an effective diameter (the diameter of the event horizon) that can be measured. Their radius, though, is effectively infinite.

I dont understand this... How can something have defined diameter but have infinite radius? Something there is not right... I find that nature itself and processess in nature are quite simple... and it start getting complicated when we as a humans dont understand fully and try to invent something in order to give it some understandable meaning. When we stumble on something and prove it, understand the process it becomes relatively simple...
I imagine black hole as a real, "solid" object of imense density and mass, nothing mystical about it..

But large black holes don't explode. Supernovas do - and we understand why.

Do we know this for sure? Do we have any evidence of this?

You're wondering why there aren't any quasars close to Earth? If there were, then the radiation might be problematic for life on Earth, which might mean we wouldn't be here to see the quasar.

I would say I agree with you on this.. but on other side, we are probably not really sure that all quasars are older than our "closer" black holes.. but we can say thay are more frequent in early universe.. i guess that early univers was denser, and maybe all these processes happen quicker...

I guess I could look it up, but maybe you can tell me: what's the nearest quasar to Earth? How far away is it?

According to Google, nearest one is around 580 million light years, but average distance is measured in billions of light years...

It's a bit more complicated than that. For example, our sun will expand and go through a red giant phase before it eventually collapses to end its life as a white dwarf star.

I was certain that process when star "switch" to new type of fuel it not peacefull transition... but followed by some violent activity...

Beyond neutron stars, there are only black holes. It's hard to make matter any denser than nuclear densities.

We don't know of any particles smaller than electrons and quarks. In fact, electrons and quarks don't really have a specific size, as such. To picture them as like tiny billiard balls is to ignore the fuzzy quantumness of them.

I partialy understand this.. but that doesnt means it doesn't exist.. right? We are yet to discover "carrier" responsible for gravity force.. right? And who know what else is there along the road...

Who knows? Maybe there are types of "bigger" particles that we haven't detected yet. However, all you have there is an idea, so far. It needs to be fleshed out into a testable theory. The theory would need to suggest what properties these "bigger" particles have and how we can detect and measure them, quantitatively.

When I said bigger particles I meant ones we already discovered and confirmed...
I think there is so much more empty space on size scale, from particles we know of to Planck lenght...

We can see the jets from black holes and measure the light emitted by them. As a consequence, we have a fairly good idea of what kinds of particles are in those jets.

I would say all normal stuff, nothing egzotic.. which supports my idea..

As I understand it, a quasar is just an active galactic nucleus - typically a supermassive black hole that is surrounded by an accretion disc of infalling matter that powers the emission jets. Am I wrong?

I think that would be typical explanation... but this is process that is happening around every black hole.. so why we can see quasars only in early universe?

I don't understand what you're saying here.

In my mind there must be something responsible for gravity force.. some "carrier"...
And we still dont know what that is... maybe is beyond size we can detect with current technology...

As far as I am aware, the only way that a black hole can decrease its mass is through Hawking radiation, and that's a very slow process (at least until the hole gets very small). Are you aware of any other mechanism?

Yes, as far as we understand Hawking radiation is only thing that can leave black hole...as far as we understand...
But if you look in history, we didnt understand bacterium and viruses until we had right technology...

Im not aware of any other mechanisms... but i had an idea... silly one..maybe... but it is what it is...

All languages sound childish next to mathematics when it comes to describing physical phenomena. That's why math is the only language that can adequately explain them. It's also why it's critical to have those math skills before trying to examine the secrets of the universe.

You are right.. but that doesnt mean i cant have idea.. there are sea of smarter people than me who can maybe one day prove things im talking about...


My idea is simple... nature is simple... things get complicated when humans dont understand something and try to explain it with things they understand, and you can see situations like this every day in life.. even this topic, im trying to explain processes i dont understand using something that i partialy understand...

And about all those "stuff" we cant detect, even dark matter and energy.... maybe we are not looking right... imagine electromagnetic spectrum.. in some wild theory we could see clear as day X-rays if our eyes and brain are configured in that way... our technology and understanding is influenced by our nature (evolution).. maybe there is more (that would be topic for xeno biology )

Anyway, thank you all for engaging with me in this discusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

I dont understand this... How can something have defined diameter but have infinite radius?

This is a very loose analogy, but consider:

You are standing at the edge of a sinkhole in the ground.

You can easily measure its diameter without going into it - or even knowing anything about what's inside it. All you do is walk its perimeter and measure the distance you travel. So you walk around it and do your math and find it is one mile in diameter,

But to be able to measure its radius means you have to know something about what's inside it, where its centre is.

So you walk into the sinkhole. Down, down you climb, to the bottom where you rest, eat, sleep and start the long journey back up. When you reach the surface again, you measure the distance you've traveled, it turns out it's twenty miles.

It is also possible that it's a hole right through the Earth. You climb down, never quite reaching the centre of the sinkhole. It's radius - in the dimensions you are travelling - is essentially infinite.

Geometry does very strange things when you break away from Cartesian coordinates.

 

[billvon]

So what are you telling me is that Hydroen is not denser than Iron or any of 24 element in between? Maybe i have completely wrong view point on this...

No, hydrogen is the least dense element. It also gives up the most energy when fused. When it is fused (via atomic fusion) it becomes a heavier element. The most common reaction (at least in science) is deuterium-tritium fusion, in which two hydrogen isotopes fuse and form helium:

D + T → 2He + 1n

The final two reactions are:

Cr + 2He → Fe
Fe + 2He → Ni

These are the final reactions that can happen in most stars because beyond this point it takes more energy to make the elements fuse than is released - so the star just stops. It becomes a white dwarf then a brown dwarf.

Question is.. what are building blocks of atomic nucleai?

Protons and neutrons.

how can we be certain that black holes are not "made" of those buliding blocks

?? They likely are. Neutron stars, for example, are made of neutrons. It's also known as "degenerate matter."

Can we be sure that atomic nuclei are on bottom of size scale and that they are one "solid mass" not comprised from smaller "stuff"... smallest building block in observable universe?

Again, atomic nuclei are made of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons (baryons) are made of quarks.

I dont understand this... How can something have defined diameter but have infinite radius?

It can't - on a flat piece of paper. But spacetime is curved so much near a black hole that it's possible.

I imagine black hole as a real, "solid" object of imense density and mass, nothing mystical about it..

Well, given that you can't ever get information or matter out of it, it's pretty unlike anything else in the universe. Not mystical perhaps but certainly VERY different than everything else.

In a real sense it's not solid because you can't ever touch it to determine its solidity. We can guess, of course.

I was certain that process when star "switch" to new type of fuel it not peacefull transition... but followed by some violent activity...

Well, a star is pretty violent activity all the time. With massive stars there are a lot of expansions and contractions as the primary fuel cycles wax and wane.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

It can be that black holes are made up of a compact matrix of quarks.

 

[James R]

Bolle23:

So what are you telling me is that Hydroen is not denser than Iron or any of 24 element in between? Maybe i have completely wrong view point on this...

You need to specify what you're actually talking about. A hydrogen atom is very different from a hydrogen nucleus, both of which are very different from a hydrogen molecule.

Also, the density of every substance varies depending on the state of matter it is in: solid, liquid or gas.

In other words, density depends on much more than just what kind of nucleus you're dealing with. Density is also something that is usually applies to collections of atoms, nuclei, molecules etc. It is not something that an individual atom/nucleus/molecule has.

Question is.. what are building blocks of atomic nucleai?

Neutrons and protons, both of which are in turn made up of quarks.

I was reffering to those... how can we be certain that black holes are not "made" of those buliding blocks, same as we are certain that neutron stars are made of atomic nuclei?

One problem is the question of what would hold the matter in place, against the force of gravity trying to compress it. We know what holds the neutrons in a neutron star in place, for example. It is called "degeneracy pressure", which has to do with the Pauli exclusion principle. Two neutrons cannot share the same quantum state, which means that they must maintain a minimum separation if they are to remain neutrons.

But in a black hole, the "force" of gravity is stronger than the supporting force of degeneracy pressure that prevents a neutron star from collapsing in on itself. So, if you want to propose a black hole made of matter, you're also going to have to suggest what is going to stop that matter from collapsing into the centre of the hole. As far as current physics goes, we're not aware of any force or effect that can do that trick.

You dont normaly have atomic nuclei floating as is in nature, but when it comes to creation of neutron stars, everything else is shed and that is all that is left.. why we cant have one more step in same direction?

The next "step" after a neutron star is a black hole.

Can we be sure that atomic nuclei are on bottom of size scale and that they are one "solid mass" not comprised from smaller "stuff"... smallest building block in observable universe?

Atomic nuclei consisting of protons and neutrons are not on the bottom of the density scale. Nuclei can be compressed further if all the protons are turned into neutrons - which is exactly what happens when a star collapses to become a neutron star.

As far as I am aware, a neutron matter cannot be further compressed into a denser state without collapsing to a black hole.

I dont understand this... How can something have defined diameter but have infinite radius? Something there is not right...

It has to do with curved geometry. For a circle in "flat" space, the circumference is always equal to pi times the diameter. But the inside of a black holes isn't a flat space. So, in the case of a black hole, the circumference can be much smaller than pi times the distance to the centre of the hole, measured in the curved space.

To give you an analogy, picture the Earth as a sphere. Now, imagine drawing a very large triangle on the curved surface of the Earth, as follows: one corner is at the north pole. The second corner is on the equator at 0 degrees longitude, and the third corner is also on the equator, at 90 degrees longitude. Connect up all three corners with "straight lines", drawn along the Earth's surface.

What do you notice about this triangle on the curved surface? First, notice that the internal angles of the triangles do not add up to 180 degrees like the angles in a triangle on flat paper. In fact, with the construction I just described, the angles add up to 270 degrees. Second, the area of this triangle is no longer equal to one half the "base" times the "height". The true area is actually larger than that.

So, you see that in a curved geometry the usual rules relating quantities like the circumference of a circle to its radius do not necessarily apply.

I find that nature itself and processess in nature are quite simple...

Then all I can say is that you have not studied them enough!

I imagine black hole as a real, "solid" object of imense density and mass, nothing mystical about it..

You need to address the objection to this that I have raised above, then. What stops the collapse?

I would say I agree with you on this.. but on other side, we are probably not really sure that all quasars are older than our "closer" black holes...

A quasar is not fundamentally different from any other black hole. A quasar is just a subtype of what astronomers call an "active galactic nucleus", which is a supermassive black hole. The specific point of difference for quasars is that they are observed to emit more electromagnetic energy than your average supermassive galactic black hole. The reason is thought to have to do with the fact that quasars are usually seen in galaxies that are interacting or merging with other galaxies, which probably means there is more matter in the accretion disk of the quasar black hole that can "power" the emissions.

... but we can say thay are more frequent in early universe... i guess that early univers was denser, and maybe all these processes happen quicker...

Well, all the galaxies were closer together than they are today, which might mean that there were more mergers and such back then. So, that makes some kind of sense.

According to Google, nearest one is around 580 million light years, but average distance is measured in billions of light years...

They are all extra-galactic objects, because they are the black-hole nuclei of other galaxies.

I was certain that process when star "switch" to new type of fuel it not peacefull transition... but followed by some violent activity...

Typically, I think that when one kind of fusion ends and the next begins, the power output of the star increases. There is often also further collapse of the star and, I think, this can be accompanied by the star shedding layer of material outwards. But then the star can settle down for many more millions of years, before the next phase happens.

We are yet to discover "carrier" responsible for gravity force.. right?

We don't have a generally-accepted quantum theory of gravity. We don't know exactly what to look for when it comes to gravitons, or how to look for them. We do have some ideas about some properties they must have, if they exist, however.

I think there is so much more empty space on size scale, from particles we know of to Planck lenght...

Why do you think that? Is this just another random musing of yours?

In my mind there must be something responsible for gravity force.. some "carrier"...

Gravitons are the postulated "carriers".

Yes, as far as we understand Hawking radiation is only thing that can leave black hole...as far as we understand...
But if you look in history, we didnt understand bacterium and viruses until we had right technology...

I don't think anybody here is going to argue our understanding of science won't improve in future.

Im not aware of any other mechanisms... but i had an idea... silly one..maybe... but it is what it is...

What is it?

 

[Bolle23]

By now, you probably understand how much knowledge i lack, but i assure you it goes far beyond that...
Anyway, im grateful that you are engaging with me in this disscusion.

Let me first quote you guys and after i will ask more...

This is a very loose analogy, but consider:

You are standing at the edge of a sinkhole in the ground.

You can easily measure its diameter without going into it - or even knowing anything about what's inside it. All you do is walk its perimeter and measure the distance you travel. So you walk around it and do your math and find it is one mile in diameter,

But to be able to measure its radius means you have to know something about what's inside it, where its centre is.

So you walk into the sinkhole. Down, down you climb, to the bottom where you rest, eat, sleep and start the long journey back up. When you reach the surface again, you measure the distance you've traveled, it turns out it's twenty miles.

It is also possible that it's a hole right through the Earth. You climb down, never quite reaching the centre of the sinkhole. It's radius - in the dimensions you are travelling - is essentially infinite.

Geometry does very strange things when you break away from Cartesian coordinates.

It has to do with curved geometry. For a circle in "flat" space, the circumference is always equal to pi times the diameter. But the inside of a black holes isn't a flat space. So, in the case of a black hole, the circumference can be much smaller than pi times the distance to the centre of the hole, measured in the curved space.

To give you an analogy, picture the Earth as a sphere. Now, imagine drawing a very large triangle on the curved surface of the Earth, as follows: one corner is at the north pole. The second corner is on the equator at 0 degrees longitude, and the third corner is also on the equator, at 90 degrees longitude. Connect up all three corners with "straight lines", drawn along the Earth's surface.

What do you notice about this triangle on the curved surface? First, notice that the internal angles of the triangles do not add up to 180 degrees like the angles in a triangle on flat paper. In fact, with the construction I just described, the angles add up to 270 degrees. Second, the area of this triangle is no longer equal to one half the "base" times the "height". The true area is actually larger than that.

So, you see that in a curved geometry the usual rules relating quantities like the circumference of a circle to its radius do not necessarily apply.

It is more clear to me now what you are explaining... but still it doesnt make much sense... why would we imagine something like that? What are our bases for this? Simply because we dont have other explanation, or do we have some real life input or evidence for this?
It looks like to me that we are trying to make sense at any costs, even if that means that we imagine something and try to prove it with math.

I will give you stupid analogy (how this looks in my mind)
For example, a magician show you some trick... and you dont know how he did it.. but you are fairly certain he put a card into his sleeve.. and you do your math around that.. and it all makes sense.. math says its possible.. and you base all your further observations of this trick based on that...
But in reality he did sleight of hand and put card into his top pocket.
No one says your math on this is wrong.. and from your current observation it all make sense.. but its not how the trick is going, its not real.

Im not trying to prove anything nor to dismiss our current phisycs.. im trying to provoke you to look at things from different angle.

Can we do a thought experiment? A sort of brainstorming?

Again, atomic nuclei are made of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons (baryons) are made of quarks.

This is one of examples where i obviously lagging with knowledge..

But if we for a moment forget all the things saying this is imposible... Lets imagine a black hole composed entirely of quarks...
That would be next step in compresion from Neutron star composed of neutrons. right? It would be "denser" ? (forgive me for using this term)

Could this object have similar properties as our current understanding of black hole?
Would this made black hole a solid three dimensional object with wierd properties?

We know that neutron star is solid object, but matter composing it isnt really in "normal" state.. right?

Lets say that gravitons do exist and that they are smaller in size (or part of) quarks, wouldn't be possible that with this level of compresion, there would be even more gravitons packed in smaller area and thus exerting more force than nutron star?

You need to specify what you're actually talking about. A hydrogen atom is very different from a hydrogen nucleus, both of which are very different from a hydrogen molecule.

Also, the density of every substance varies depending on the state of matter it is in: solid, liquid or gas.

In other words, density depends on much more than just what kind of nucleus you're dealing with. Density is also something that is usually applies to collections of atoms, nuclei, molecules etc. It is not something that an individual atom/nucleus/molecule has.

Maybe density is not right word.. but let me try to explain..
Hydrogen atom is composed from 1 electron and 1 proton... but Iron has 26 of everything with exception to 30 neutrons.. so "denser" in lack of better word in my vocabulary... or is it just biger and distances between electrons and protons are same in every case?
I would bet that Iron because of this has more gravity pull than hydrogen.. if we go with idea that quarks have gravitons in them.

Im not aware of any other mechanisms... but i had an idea... silly one..maybe... but it is what it is...

What is it?

This whole post is.. my idea.. that black holes are simple (not really simple) solid objects in 3 dimensional space-time, composed from "matter" usualy not "observed" in that form in oposite from opinion that there is anything infinite about them...


Do I make any sense? Should i leave this and go do some gardening...?

Thanks guys.

 

[DaveC426913]

. why would we imagine something like that? What are our bases for this?

We didn't imagine it. It is what the math says. In fact, it was the math that predicted black holes. We only found out they exist a long time later.

That math is Einsteinian relativity, and it has proven to be fabulously good at predicting how nature works. We see it in the precession of Mercury, we see it in the frame dragging of Earth. We see it everywhere.

Should i leave this and go do some gardening...?

No. You should read. Primers on Einsteinian Relativity. You will learn much, and you will be fascinated the whole time.

 

[James R]

Bolle23:

It is more clear to me now what you are explaining... but still it doesnt make much sense... why would we imagine something like that? What are our bases for this? Simply because we dont have other explanation, or do we have some real life input or evidence for this?
It looks like to me that we are trying to make sense at any costs, even if that means that we imagine something and try to prove it with math.

Actually, it's not just a matter of Einstein (or anybody else) dreaming up a really complicated picture in which spacetime curves and all that. What happened instead is that Einstein started off with some really simple assumptions and then had to solve the problem of finding a mathematical framework that would be consistent with those assumptions. It turned out - not through any prior plan of Einstein's - that curved spacetime was a model that was consistent with the simple assumptions that Einstein was making, whereas the far simpler model of a "flat" space and a separate, independent, universal time (which was the prior assumption of the Newtonian/Galilean model) was not consistent with Einstein's simple assumptions.

Specifically, Einstein started by assuming the laws of physics will look the same to any observer, provided their motion is "inertial", which essentially means that they are moving at a constant velocity. His second assumption - made several years after the first one - was that if an observer is freely falling due to the gravitational attraction of a planet (or because they are out in space, far from any large masses) then their motion is inertial.

Everything else in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity follows from these basic assumptions, or postulates. The difficulty lies in making sure that the mathematical model of spacetime is consistent with the assumptions. It took Einstein 10 years to nail down those details. When he made the assumptions in the first place, he didn't know anything about how to describe curved geometries mathematically. He didn't even know that he would need to do that. He had to ask a friend to teach him some of the relevant maths. Point is: he didn't dream up "curved spacetime" out of whole cloth. It was forced on him because it was the maths that worked with his postulates.

Now, you might be thinking, as you read this "Well, who says that Einstein's initial assumptions were right in the first place? He was just guessing, wasn't he? How do we know the universe couldn't work in some way other than the one Einstein imagined?"

The answer is: we can't be 100% sure Einstein got it all 100% right. But this is not unusual in science - we can't ever be 100% sure that any scientific model is 100% right. The best we can do is to compare the predictions that the model makes with the results from real-world experiments and observations, and base our level of confidence on the scientific theory on the extent to which it correctly describes and predicts what the experiments and observations show us to be the case.

In the case of the General Theory of Relativity, it has passed every experimental test with flying colours. No observation or experiment has ever refuted it. Moreover, it makes some very precise quantitative predictions about the results of many different experiments, and all of them seem to agree with real-world experimental results. So that is why physicists have confidence in the Theory.

For example, a magician show you some trick... and you dont know how he did it.. but you are fairly certain he put a card into his sleeve.. and you do your math around that.. and it all makes sense.. math says its possible.. and you base all your further observations of this trick based on that...
But in reality he did sleight of hand and put card into his top pocket.
No one says your math on this is wrong.. and from your current observation it all make sense.. but its not how the trick is going, its not real.

That's fair. If anybody thinks that Einstein's initial assumptions are flawed, or that they have a better (perhaps simpler) theory that explains everything at least as well as General Relativity, then they can publish their theory and test it experimentally. Then the two theories can be compared to see which one is better. Science will happily toss out GR just as soon as there is a better theory available to replace it (where "better" is decided by the kinds factors I mentioned earlier - basically better agreement with real-world experiments and observations).

Im not trying to prove anything nor to dismiss our current phisycs.. im trying to provoke you to look at things from different angle.

What makes you think that physicists aren't already looking at things from all kinds of different angles, or that they haven't been doing that for the past 100 years, since Einstein first proposed his theory?

What physicist wouldn't want to have it shown that her theory is superior to Einstein's?

Can we do a thought experiment? A sort of brainstorming?

As many as you like.

But if we for a moment forget all the things saying this is imposible... Lets imagine a black hole composed entirely of quarks...
That would be next step in compresion from Neutron star composed of neutrons. right? It would be "denser" ? (forgive me for using this term)

Could this object have similar properties as our current understanding of black hole?
Would this made black hole a solid three dimensional object with wierd properties?

I don't actually know whether a "quark star" is possible. Since people who do know that kind of thing don't talk about them, my guess is that they aren't possible, but I can't give you the reasons off the top of my head.

I suspect, however, that a quark star - if it can exist - would look rather different to the black holes that we can see with our telescopes and our gravitational wave detectors.

We know that neutron star is solid object, but matter composing it isnt really in "normal" state.. right?

In one sense, no object is a "solid object". Or, rather, you need to be careful to have an accurate picture in mind when you talk about something being "solid". You've probably heard that 99% of the volume of an atom is "empty space", I suppose. But that doesn't stop your body or a chair or a door from being solid. It doesn't mean that one object made of atoms can just move right through another object made of atoms, even if there is lots of "empty space" for the electrons and nuclei to "fit" past one another.

Lets say that gravitons do exist and that they are smaller in size (or part of) quarks, wouldn't be possible that with this level of compresion, there would be even more gravitons packed in smaller area and thus exerting more force than nutron star?

Gravitons, if they exist, will not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Therefore, you could pack as many gravitons in exactly the same place as you like and they won't mind. Also, it's worth bearing in mind that gravitons, if they exist, will be particles that are constantly moving at the speed of light. You wouldn't be able to keep them in one place.

Hydrogen atom is composed from 1 electron and 1 proton... but Iron has 26 of everything with exception to 30 neutrons.. so "denser" in lack of better word in my vocabulary... or is it just biger and distances between electrons and protons are same in every case?

An iron atom is somewhat larger in volume than a hydrogen atom, but not 26 or 56 times larger, or anything like that. It's more like about 4 times larger, in fact.

However, the iron atom does have about 56 times the mass of the hydrogen atom, because it contains 26 protons and (usually) 30 neutrons, whereas the hydrogen atom (usually) only has a single proton.

I would bet that Iron because of this has more gravity pull than hydrogen.. if we go with idea that quarks have gravitons in them.

The "force of gravity" depends on how much mass an object has and how far away it is from the thing its gravity is pulling on. So, an iron atom will exert a force of gravity on a nearby electron that is 56 times larger than the force that a hydrogen atom would exert on that electron if it was at the same distance from the nucleus in both cases.

This whole post is.. my idea.. that black holes are simple (not really simple) solid objects in 3 dimensional space-time, composed from "matter" usualy not "observed" in that form in oposite from opinion that there is anything infinite about them...

The mass of a black hole is not infinite. In fact, the "size" of a black hole - given by the radius of its event horizon - depends on the mass. More mass means a larger hole. A black hole has a mass exactly equal to the mass of all the things that have fallen into the hole (i.e. all the things that have crossed inside the event horizon). It's never infinite, but it can be very large. For example, the black hole at the centre of our galaxy has a mass several million times the mass of our Sun, which in turn contains more than 99% of all the mass in our solar system.