Is black hole just massive particle ?

[tytower]

Also (back to topic), I found out that in string theory black hole is just one big string.

I can't resist
How long is the piece of string?

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Not too long ago people were losing faith in string theory. Now at least one scientific experiment has been predicted by string theory and proven to be true...something that would not be known otherwise. It has also been shown to look good on the very very small scale as well as the super massive scale, something that no other theory could do so far, so it could be a real TOE after all.

 

[vlad777]

Common sense: aka trust your senses

The earth is flat
The sun and orbit the earth
The earth is the center of the universe.

The idea of understanding black holes via common sense is quite humors.

Seriously I recall a scientist comparing a water fall to a black hole. Point of no return is the event horizon etc. Good stuff.

https://forums.mvgroup.org/index.php?showtopic=42360
I heard Leonard Susskind explain Hubble effect with pond with equally spaced pipes pumping in water.
Water in pond is of course space And if you work it out, the speed of fish going away from each other
is proportional to their distance.

 

[Sceadwian]

Any black mass would attract anything and I do not know if there is a spherical distance limit on this . Our solar system is being held in orbit around our galaxie's black mass. Our Galaxie is colliding with various clouds and other Galaxies right now but we are not always going to be aware of it.

What about dark energy? We already know for fact gravity is losing this theoretical battle, and there is currently only wild speculation about what dark energy could be.

 

[tytower]

What about dark energy? We already know for fact gravity is losing this theoretical battle, and there is currently only wild speculation about what dark energy could be.

Imagine what an object 20 Billion times the sun's mass might look like if it could be seen . Imagine the mass of material involved yet we can't see it. Such as that, is, I believe, at the center of every Galaxy.
Dark energy - I doubt it
Look at this picture and just try to imagine the mass of material involved
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111220.html

 

[3v0]

So 3Vo you resort to just censoring any remarks that don't agree with you ?

The deleting was done to attempt to keep this thread on topic rather then close it. I will sensor mine as well if it makes you fell better.

If you want to discuss your anti science views start another thread.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,


When we experience, as humans, anything on this earth we are experiencing the interaction of sub atomic particles. But like bricks that build a house, when we experience the bricks individually we see one thing, but in the finished house we see another thing that is quite different than the brick. And that's just the start of it. The house exists because the bricks not only exist, but there are other conditions that are required as well. Namely, distance. Distance, although often overlooked in this kind of simple example, is the requirement that the bricks be only a certain distance apart, within some error margin. If they are too far apart they behave like a brick, but if they are close together they act like a construction like say a house.
But with sub atomic particles there's another possibility. What if we were to smash the bricks together, what would we get. We'd get two bricks that are smashed into small fragments and maybe make a little pile of dust. So the brick that once served our unique purpose of building our reality now is reduced to being able to do next to nothing for us. We certainly can no longer build a house with that pile of dust.
Sub atomic particles have to live by the same rule. The rule of limits of distance. If they break that rule, they become useless in creating the reality that we experience in every day life as human kind. Not necessarily useless to the universe as a building block, but to us we may not even be able to experience them at all except in some very indirect way.

Enter the violation of that rule where we force the sub atomic particles closer together than they ever were before. What do we get. We get nothing that we are used to experiencing in every day life. Just like the bricks, we get nothing usable, at least in our normal sense of what is usable. It might even be that gravity takes over once they get closer than the normal limit, which could be where the black hole comes from. One theory is that they enter a fourth dimension where they certainly exist in a way different than we can imagine. And as to common sense, that's just what we call experience with the everyday reality, but that goes away as we consider things that we simply dont have good experience with yet. Once we do gain that experience, they will become part of our common sense as well. We have to wait for this, but in the mean time we have another kind of sense and that is what we can gain through mathematics. We can gain experience with things we've never encountered before and start to deal with them almost as if they were part of common sense.

So the point is that black holes could be sub atomic particles that are forced together so close that they appear to leave our normal reality and enter what might be a fourth dimension where it's possible the only way we can then experience them is through gravity.

 

[tytower]

Enter the violation of that rule where we force the sub atomic particles closer together than they ever were before. What do we get. We get nothing that we are used to experiencing in every day life. Just like the bricks, we get nothing usable, at least in our normal sense of what is usable. It might even be that gravity takes over once they get closer than the normal limit, which could be where the black hole comes from. One theory is that they enter a fourth dimension where they certainly exist in a way different than we can imagine. And as to common sense, that's just what we call experience with the everyday reality, but that goes away as we consider things that we simply dont have good experience with yet. Once we do gain that experience, they will become part of our common sense as well. We have to wait for this, but in the mean time we have another kind of sense and that is what we can gain through mathematics. We can gain experience with things we've never encountered before and start to deal with them almost as if they were part of common sense.

So the point is that black holes could be sub atomic particles that are forced together so close that they appear to leave our normal reality and enter what might be a fourth dimension where it's possible the only way we can then experience them is through gravity.

I am not aware that anyone has actually seen anything this small. We cannot actually see an atom yet. The above then enters the realm of pure speculation and cannot be backed up with citeable scientific theory. I mean citeable as to provable ,reproduceable real experimental results.
I am intrigued at where all this speculation on such subjects comes from?
"4th dimensions" ?" Exist in a way different to what we can imagine" ?
I want some of what you take too please specially for Christmas.

 

[Sceadwian]

I am not aware that anyone has actually seen anything this small. We cannot actually see an atom yet.

And we never will, light won't reflect off them to properly see them except for single photons, there are methods which allow us to image atoms though. IBM manipulated atoms to create their own logo with single atoms and imaged them using a scanning tunneling microscope... 20 years ago

https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

tytower, you really might want to do some researching about what is and is not possible.

 

[tytower]

Ok , I saw that attempt at the time and they could not deal with separate atoms but with blobs of atoms which simply had a blurred blob spherical appearance and blobs of atoms were encouraged to move on top of other blobs of atoms.

There was a picture published at the time of just one of those anthills magnified and showing much more detail . I did not see that on your citation web site.

Manipulation of molecules in fact . Not single atoms.

Now to people generally who love to hate me , if you wish to denegrate my posts that's your choice but please then supply links or citations to the science experiments or results which you rely on as Sceadwian has here -it means something then.

People here are apt to make statements which simply cannot be supported and are merely opinion passed off as fact.
I myself am guilty of that from time to time so I have to give leeway.
I have studied pure physics at Uni for a couple of years in 1991 & 92 at JCU in Townsville
I am not anti science as some have asserted
I just did not like the math and was not good at it ( and did not want to be) so I went to Law. I already had an Accountancy degree and was a Company Auditor and Liquidator.

When I queried my Lecturers on some of Einsteins work for instance his explanation of why he believed what he was teaching was correct was extremely weak when I went into it and was another reason for giving it away. I am very suspicious of the accuracy of Einsteins work despite the general acceptance of it . I believe some important aspects are wrong . I believe for instance that time is an absolute and does not change in any situation.

This becomes important in the study of black masses (black holes is a very bad choice of words). The gravitational lensing of light around black masses is intriguing also. How far could the passing light actually be bent and how old is the light we see.

So Put up a citation or web site if you wish to have a credible shot at me - I won't mind.
Sceadwian -I think you are wrong , we will see an atom in the near future .

 

[Sceadwian]

Tytower, can you reference any sources that show that what IBM did was manipulate molecules not atoms? I didn't run across anything that suggests that and you've cited no references.
The references I sited is linked about that clearly using no uncertain words says those are individual atoms. If you can prove otherwise simply provide references, not hearsay. I'm not here to slander or argue with anyone, but there is not even the slightest room for an alternate meaning to the words used in every article I've found concerning it that state it was individual Xenon atoms on a metal subtrate. If you can show otherwise I'd greatly appreciate it as I don't like stating things which I can't verify.

Please provide the citations that contradict the claims of the article I posted, I welcome it because I'd like to know the truth myself if it's different from what I've read.

 

[trash]

You don't go through a black hole ,you squash into it

Not quite. Squashing suggests that constituents of material are pushed closer together.
this isn't what happens to matter was it approaches the event horizon. The opposite happens.
The gravitational potential difference stretches objects. Wilee Coyote style falling.

Objects are stretched and torn apart first at a macro scale, as we descend down the black hole's gravitational well in our Plymouth Satellite the first thing that happens is the string holding the fuzzy dice snaps.
Next the fuzz is ripped off and the fabric and stuffing torn down to individual threads.
Then those threads are ripped apart to individual fibres.
Next the physical material is torn up into individual molecules.

We're getting closer to the event horizon, but we're not there yet.
Gravity overwhelms even the electrostatic force holding molecules together and tears our fuzzy dice into individual atoms.
Electrons are stripped from the orbits of the atoms and the atoms themselves are torn apart into quarks and other subatomic particles before finally crossing the event horizon.

Can anyone explain why a black hole sucks things in and our sun doesn't?

As mentioned, both the sun and black holes have gravitational attraction with other objects.
But objects don't just "fall in". There is a lot more at play than a ball falling to earth.
The question is more, "How do objects fall in ?"

You might be thinking of the orbit of the planets around the sun. Why don't they fall into the sun and yet objects orbiting around a black hole are sucked in ?
It's a bit of a miss understanding. Objects don't fall into black holes any different to planets falling into the sun. After all, the whole galaxy isn't sucked into the core black hole for the same reason. (angular momentum)

If we once again get into our rocket, leave earth and point our rocket at the sun and fire the engines until we run out of fuel we do not fall into the sun.
Instead we find ourselves in an elliptical orbit. In order to get to the sun we have to lose all the angular momentum we had as if we orbited the sun where the earth is.
It's a lot of energy to lose.

Now imagine something with the mass of a star orbiting a black hole where its perigee is two light years.
How does the star lose all that energy to fall into the black hole ? It doesn't have rocket motors, so where does that energy go ?

In the case of binary systems that pass close to the black hole, one of the stars is ripped from the pair by the black hole and enters an elliptical orbit around the black hole and the other gains the energy that it's companion lost. Enough energy to eject it clean from the galaxy to become an orphan star in intergalactic space.
If the star that was captured passes close enough to the black hole, then gravity can do the rest as it rips the star apart.

 

[Sceadwian]

[MODNOTE]Off Topic. If you have a problem with moderation then either create a thread in the feedback forum or send a PM to ElectroMaster.[/MODNOTE]

 

[april]

Everyone can pop up and tell you how it really is -so farscical but a good read for a laugh non the less. It shows the TV/Startrek influences at work

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

If you point a rocket at the sun and fire the rockets you will hit the sun. You'll loose all that momentum as the object gets absorbed into the body of the sun. If you want to orbit the sun, you've got to point the rocket just beyond one edge so that the rocket takes a path that just misses the sun. The angle relative to the center of the sun would have to be calculated from the mass of the sun and craft.
As the rocket begins to pass the sun, the gravity would pull it toward the sun but if it was going fast enough it would then pass the sun but being pulled back it would enter an orbit. If it was going too fast it's path would bend and it would actually gain momentum meaning it would miss the sun, turn, and speed up.

Yes falling into a black hole is still an open question really. Falling toward it causes matter to undergo what is now known as "spaghettification" which means they first get stretched into a long noodle shape. That's because the gravitational field is so strong that the gradient of the field is high. That means that at a distance D from the 'center' to the object the gravity could exert a force G, but 1mm deeper it could be G plus a ton. For example a person standing on the surface of the Earth experiences just about the same gravitational attraction at their feet as at their head so there's very little net stretching action in their body. But somewhere near a black hole heading closer and closer feet first they might experience 1 ton of attraction at their head and 2 tons at their feet, which would leave a net stretching force of 1 ton pulling their body into a long noodle shape.
There's also the angle of parts of the person to consider too. For example with the feet together the two big toes would see roughly the same angle of pull while the shoulders being father apart would be pulled in at an angle which also tends to squash the person from the sides.

Once their parts get 'into' the black hole it's debatable what happens. It's believed that they get closer and closer to the center but because time slows down in such an intense gravitational field it may take them forever to actual reach the center.

Another theory says that they dont actually enter the black hole, but are spread across the surface of it. There's a lot to this one though so you'll have to read up on it on the web if you are interested. It's backed by some mathematics too so it's hard to dismiss.

 

[april]

So if I look at the Sun when it spews matter into space its path away seems straight up , it remains aloft for days at a time sometimes , it appears to fall following magnetic lines .
We are looking there at billions even trillions of tonnes which do not fall anything like our gravity paths on earth .
Given a black hole has billions of times more matter at its core why would you assume matter is going to fall like it does on earth. Obviously it will fall completely differently again.
You are one of those I speak about, "Knowitalls "

 

[MrAl]

So if I look at the Sun when it spews matter into space its path away seems straight up , it remains aloft for days at a time sometimes , it appears to fall following magnetic lines .
We are looking there at billions even trillions of tonnes which do not fall anything like our gravity paths on earth .
Given a black hole has billions of times more matter at its core why would you assume matter is going to fall like it does on earth. Obviously it will fall completely differently again.
You are one of those I speak about, "Knowitalls "

Hi,

Really now? To call someone a so called "know it all" you have to yourself first assume you know more than they do, which makes you yourself a "know it all".

If you have MORE or BETTER information to share then by all means share it, but it does no good to anyone including yourself to call someone names of any kind. You're response is even a little more strange because the information already here points out that it does not in fact fall like it does on earth. The field is more intense and is more directed. But again if you have more or better info to share im sure everyone would like to hear it and so you would be improving this thread.

 

[april]

Ho Hum .
Here's an interesting page
**broken link removed**
https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/aug/HQ_12-295_WISE_Black_Holes.html

And black holes with20 Billion times the mass of our sun. makes the mind boggle but its all true fact they say

 

[trash]

If you point a rocket at the sun and fire the rockets you will hit the sun.

This isn't quite correct and you're thinking in a pre-newtonian sort of physics.
Your model assumes that both your rocket and the sun are at rest.
If you run the model from this point, without even firing the engines of the rocket, the gravity of the star will pull the rocket towards it (and vice versa) and the rocket will fall into the star.

That's pretty simple, but it in no way reflects reality.
The star is moving, and so is the rocket. The rocket has a solar orbital velocity (same as the earth) It has to lose this energy in order to fall into the star.

So if we point our rocket at the sun and fire the engines, this is the best way to miss it.
It's also the most energy hungry method of getting to the star.

Instead, the least energy intensive (without using gravitational sling shots) is to point the rocket in the opposite direction to its relative motion with the star and then fire the engines.

Think about how a spacecraft re-enters the earth atmosphere. Like the shuttle. It flies backwards and fires it's engines to slow it down and decrease it's orbit.
The earth's atmosphere does the rest.

In space there is no atmosphere, so like the lunar lander, it has to use the engines to remove all the orbital energy.

Add to this that the star is moving, so even as you head towards the star, depending on how you approach the star with respect to it's motion it can also slingshot the rocket into a higher orbit or a lower one, not withstanding that you get close enough for solar atmospheric drag to pull you in that last mile.

The key thing to notice here is that it requires a loss or cancellation of energy to fall in.
For matter falling into a black hole it is no different. For the space shuttle re-entering the atmosphere, this energy is presented as heat from atmospheric friction.

For particles falling into a black hole, it's X-rays. But this is from particles very close the event horizon. Even as particles undergo "spaghettification" they release radiation as they are torn apart. If you start pulling atoms apart into protons and neutrons, then energy is required to do this, or energy is emitted in the form of radiation.
How do larger objects a little further out form the black hole lose energy to fall in.

In the example of galaxies colliding and black holes merging, stars are ejected from the galaxy to displace the energy of the black holes falling towards each other.

Likewise some energy from a solar system can be lost from a host star by ejecting it's planets as it passes other stars and nears the black hole. Stars themselves can slingshot each other.
So while one escapes the other is drawn in closer.

We are looking there at billions even trillions of tonnes which do not fall anything like our gravity paths on earth .

But it does fall just like matter on Earth. The laws of physics aren't any different in that region of space than they are here.

The reason why this material doesn't fall back into the sun is because it has extremely high velocities. The matter that follows magnetic lines is charged, and the sun's magnetic field is very strong that close in to the star.
If it were not for the magnetic field, or the high velocity of the particles then they would fall back into the star. And this can be seen with part of the Corona Mass Ejections.
While a large amount of matter is flung into space, there is a lot of gas near the edges which falls back to the sun.

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,


If you point a rocket at the sun and you dont know that we are in an orbit around the sun then you shouldnt be firing a rocket in the first place. This means either you have a guidance system or just good aim due to calculations.

But just because the Space Shuttle has to loose energy to land on Earth, that doesnt mean that everything has to loose energy before it can come down. With no atmosphere a rocket would not have to loose energy before it gets to that planet with no atmosphere. It could loose that energy when it hits the planet, so it would loose lots of energy alright but not until it hits.

You're somehow trying to say that a bullet cant hit a target unless it looses all it's energy FIRST. But on impact, it looses energy then and doesnt have to loose all it's energy before it hits.

The Shuttle doesnt loose all it's energy anyway. It looses most of it's energy. The rest gets lost on the landing strip.