Matter compression in black holes

billvon said:
They do. They have an effective diameter (the diameter of the event horizon) that can be measured. Their radius, though, is effectively infinite.
Click to expand...
Hi billvon! That suggests that the singularity is defined by infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, I think? Correct? From what I have read about black holes, (the best of that being Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" ) most cosmologists reject such infinite status. Of course our laws of physics and GR fail us there anyway, so we can only make educated guesses. My guess is that what exists at an below the singularity (where our laws of physics and GR fail us) is similar or the same as what exists at the first instant of the big bang and before that. That be quantum foam, or spacetime at the quantum/Planck level. As an addition to this, quantum foam, according to Professor Lawrence Krauss, is what we should effectively be defining as "NOTHING" and that which has existed for eternity. This scientific speculation is what was put in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" again, nothing being quantum foam.
 
Roosters for ever said:
Hi billvon! That suggests that the singularity is defined by infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, I think? Correct? From what I have read about black holes, (the best of that being Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" ) most cosmologists reject such infinite status. Of course our laws of physics and GR fail us there anyway, so we can only make educated guesses. My guess is that what exists at an below the singularity (where our laws of physics and GR fail us) is similar or the same as what exists at the first instant of the big bang and before that. That be quantum foam, or spacetime at the quantum/Planck level. As an addition to this, quantum foam, according to Professor Lawrence Krauss, is what we should effectively be defining as "NOTHING" and that which has existed for eternity. This scientific speculation is what was put in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" again, nothing being quantum foam.
Click to expand...
Pop Science mate
 
Bolle23 said:
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
Click to expand...
Didn't some scientist say something to the effect that if you can't explain it to a child, then you don't understand it? I think you have put your ideas pretty well. I'm no scientist and have understood the basis of what you say.
 
Roosters for ever said:
Hi billvon! That suggests that the singularity is defined by infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, I think? Correct? From what I have read about black holes, (the best of that being Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" ) most cosmologists reject such infinite status. Of course our laws of physics and GR fail us there anyway, so we can only make educated guesses. My guess is that what exists at an below the singularity (where our laws of physics and GR fail us) is similar or the same as what exists at the first instant of the big bang and before that. That be quantum foam, or spacetime at the quantum/Planck level. As an addition to this, quantum foam, according to Professor Lawrence Krauss, is what we should effectively be defining as "NOTHING" and that which has existed for eternity. This scientific speculation is what was put in Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing" again, nothing being quantum foam.
Click to expand...
If you want to really delve into this you need a decent course on GR.
Im not versed on tensor calculus, tried it with Dr physics A. It all made sense because the maths did. By the time the maths just got more and more crazy I bailed.
I will try again
 
Pinball1970 said:
If you want to really delve into this you need a decent course on GR.
Im not versed on tensor calculus, tried it with Dr physics A. It all made sense because the maths did. By the time the maths just got more and more crazy I bailed.
I will try again
Click to expand...
great idea!! but at this stage of my life, I'm too bloody old for that!!!
 
Pinball1970 said:
T

That could have been Feynman
Click to expand...
I think it is a garbled version of a remark attributed to Rutherford, who in the original said (allegedly) you should be able to explain it to a barmaid.

But it may be apocryphal, even for Rutherford ~1910. Since the advent of relativity and quantum theory a decade or so later I doubt anyone serious would have said anything so rash.
 
Roosters for ever said:
It's certainly speculative, but pop science? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Neither infinite curvature nor infinite density are called for.

Unpacking 'infinite density' for example: Nobody expects the density to be infinite - that's analogous to a naive divide-by-zero error (which, by the way, does not result in infinity)

We don't know what laws apply inside a black hole; we simply call it a 'singularity' - and all that means is: our current understanding does not apply.

If it has the word infinite attached it it, it is probably a pop-sci editorial choice, not rooted in science.
 
Roosters for ever said:
Hi billvon! That suggests that the singularity is defined by infinite spacetime curvature and infinite density, I think? Correct?
Click to expand...
Actually, "singularity" is a mathematical term. It's a condition in an equation or mathematical expression where the expression "blows up".

A simple example is the mathematical function y=1/x. For any value of x other than x=0, you can calculate a value for y. But when x=0, y is undefined. So the expression y=1/x "blows up" when x=0. Or, as a mathematician would say, the function y=1/x has a singularity at x=0.

You can see where the idea of infinity can come into this, too. Consider what happens if we start with, say, x=1 and then gradually reduce the value of x towards x=0. What happens to the value of y? Here are some pairs:
Code: 
x     y
1.0  1.0
0.5  2.0
0.1  10.0
0.01 100
0.0001 10000
You can see that y gets larger and larger as x approaches 0 from above. Mathematically, we say "the limit as x goes to zero from the positive side is infinity".

Infinity isn't a number. It is a concept. It is not true that y=infinity when x=0, because infinity is not a number. In fact, as I mentioned above, y is undefined at x=0.
Roosters for ever said:
From what I have read about black holes, (the best of that being Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" ) most cosmologists reject such infinite status.
Click to expand...
When physicists or mathematicians say "There's a singularity at r=0, which corresponds to the centre of a black hole", they are actually just saying things like "The curvature of spacetime at r=0 is undefined" and things like that. In other words, they are saying that something in the equations "blows up" when r=0.

They aren't talking about a physical thing when they say there's a "singularity". A singularity is not a thing you can poke or prod to discover what it is.
Roosters for ever said:
Of course our laws of physics and GR fail us there anyway, so we can only make educated guesses. My guess is that what exists at an below the singularity (where our laws of physics and GR fail us) is similar or the same as what exists at the first instant of the big bang and before that. That be quantum foam, or spacetime at the quantum/Planck level.
Click to expand...
Why guess? What's wrong with just saying "We don't currently have a theory that we can use to describe the physics very close to the centre of a black hole"? That doesn't imply that we shouldn't work to develop such a theory, of course. But it doesn't pretend we have knowledge that we don't have.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Neither infinite curvature nor infinite density are called for.
Click to expand...
Personally, I hate the concept of infinity or eternal. Let's say then that GR simply says we are approaching infinite spacetime curvature and density. Obviously, as I said most all cosmologists and astronomers reject ever reaching such status. For more info we need a validated QGT.
James R said:
They aren't talking about a physical thing when they say there's a "singularity". A singularity is not a thing you can poke or prod to discover what it is.

Why guess? What's wrong with just saying "We don't currently have a theory that we can use to describe the physics very close to the centre of a black hole"? That doesn't imply that we shouldn't work to develop such a theory, of course. But it doesn't pretend we have knowledge that we don't have.
Click to expand...
No problems with your first sentence, because as matter falls into a black hole and approaches the gravitational singularity, it is broken down into its most basic fundamental particles. Understanding that we would eventually arrive at quarks, which as far as I am aware, is not something you can touch anyway as they are never seen in isolation, and are more energy then particle. On the second, certainly we don't have a theory for what happens at the singularity, and need a validated QGT as I mentioned to Dave. The problem here as I can see is that while we do have some theories, (well more hypotheticals, eg: string, loop quantum gravity) we are unable to "observe" at such levels and so as yet do not have any proper QGT theory. And of course I am not "pretending" we have knowledge or more correctly observational data, I'm simply stating I like Professor Krauss, speculation, among the plenty of other speculative ideas that abound about both the big bang and the black hole singularity. Also which should be now obvious, my maths with regard to GR and such is non existent. I remember well growing up in the fifties and when my interest in astronomy peaked, we had three theories with regards to the evolution of the universe, Freddy Hoyle,s, Steady State, the Oscillating theory, and of course the big bang theory. All were on level pegging until the discovery of the CMBR which saw the big bang grow in prominence. Might need to pull Kip Thorne's book out and catch up on some ideas, although that now is more then a decade old!
 
exchemist said:
I think it is a garbled version of a remark attributed to Rutherford, who in the original said (allegedly) you should be able to explain it to a barmaid.

But it may be apocryphal, even for Rutherford ~1910. Since the advent of relativity and quantum theory a decade or so later I doubt anyone serious would have said anything so rash.
Click to expand...
No one better I would rather explain it do then a barmaid! (over a VB or two) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top