Black Holes In Question

[zanzibarjones 1]

What is the shape of a black hole?Is it a hole, or a sphere, or a funnel?Personally I don't think they are real at all. I think they are a fabrication to explain unexplainable happenings. Or a filler theory, to complete and uncomplete circle.For instance, a black hole was supposedly so strong nothing could escape it's grip, now some say they are particles that can escape, and that explains why they are real.If it is indeed a functional thing, sucking in all kinds of matter into a point of destruction, well shouldn't it then at some point become saturated? A point at which it has sucked in all it can? Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?If a black hole is a sphere, would not anything that was being sucked into it have a point at which it reaches an apex? If so, isn't that apex a contradiction of escape? An apex is the highest point of an arch, there for there should be no arch in particles being sucked into a black hole, they should all be straight lines.What do you guys and gals think?

[Bikerman 2]

What is the shape of a black hole?Is it a hole, or a sphere, or a funnel?

None of the above (depending on what exactly you mean). The singularity is a zero dimensional point. The surrounding event horizon is spherical, but you can't see it directly - only as a black zone.

Personally I don't think they are real at all. I think they are a fabrication to explain unexplainable happenings. Or a filler theory, to complete and uncomplete circle.

Why worry about the shape then? I haven't a clue what you mean by that last phrase...a filler theory to complete and uncomplete circle? huh?

For instance, a black hole was supposedly so strong nothing could escape it's grip, now some say they are particles that can escape, and that explains why they are real.

You mean Hawking radiation. No mystery. Even in space virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time in the form of particle-anti-particle pairs, like positron and electron. They quickly recombine and annihilate. But if this happens at the event horizon then one of the pair might be pulled-in and the other escapes. That then can be regarded as a particle being 'emitted' by the black hole because it has supplied the energy to keep the pair of particles apart.

If it is indeed a functional thing, sucking in all kinds of matter into a point of destruction, well shouldn't it then at some point become saturated? A point at which it has sucked in all it can? Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?

There is no theoretical limit. But don't think of it as a beast sucking everything in - common misconception. If the sun turned into a black hole, you wouldn't notice apart from the dark/cold. The earth would carry on orbiting, as would the other planets. A black hole can only attract according to it's mass just like everything else in the universe.

If a black hole is a sphere, would not anything that was being sucked into it have a point at which it reaches an apex? If so, isn't that apex a contradiction of escape? An apex is the highest point of an arch, there for there should be no arch in particles being sucked into a black hole, they should all be straight lines.

An apex is normally a tip or point and a circle has no tip or point. In fact it is sucked-in to the singularity - an infinitely small dot in space. This is where the science ends because we don't know much about the singularity and probably never will, since nothing, including light, can escape, so we have no way to see it or interact with it in any way. Some say it is a tear in spacetime - it could possibly lead to another spacetime - another universe.

[zanzibarjones 1]

Man I love these kind of conversations. EVen though I am not a scholar, I still lvoe to ask question and talk about my views. Everyday I learn something new here, and I learn of what others think about my ideas and theories and views. Just amazing.... Thanks for replying

[mahesh2k 0]

it could possibly lead to another spacetime - another universe.

I'm not sure how we all (including scientist) possibly think about multiple universe or dimensions. It could be dead zone there or could be space-time loop. I would like to think if there is space-time loop, that way we able to witness the universe back in time. Just like warp gates this space-time loop traveling is also hypothesis but it's interesting.

[Bikerman 2]

I'm not sure how we all (including scientist) possibly think about multiple universe or dimensions. It could be dead zone there or could be space-time loop. I would like to think if there is space-time loop, that way we able to witness the universe back in time. Just like warp gates this space-time loop traveling is also hypothesis but it's interesting.

Physicist Lee Smolin has a rather beautiful hypothesis (beautiful in terms of the symmeries involved and the neat way it extends evolutionary concepts).

Basically, Smolin says, imagine that a Black Hole is the birth of another universe. So there are a huge number of universes and any universe with black holes can be regarded as the 'parent' of other universes.
Now you apply evolutionary theory. Obviously universes that produce black holes will be 'selected for' because those that don't will not reproduce. Run this for a few trillion years and you end up with what we see - a universe which appears to have the fundamental constants (like the speed of light) set to such a perfect value to support life. Change any of the fundamental numbers and no life can evolve because the universe would either collapse or not form suns.
With Smolin's theory this is explained. It isn't that the universe is 'fine tuned' to support life. It is evolved to produce black holes and it just so happens that any universe that produces black holes must have the same value of the fundamental numbers - which also allows it to support life.

Lovely theory......

[zanzibarjones 1]

Physicist Lee Smolin has a rather beautiful hypothesis (beautiful in terms of the symmeries involved and the neat way it extends evolutionary concepts).
Basically, Smolin says, imagine that a Black Hole is the birth of another universe. So there are a huge number of universes and any universe with black holes can be regarded as the 'parent' of other universes.
Now you apply evolutionary theory. Obviously universes that produce black holes will be 'selected for' because those that don't will not reproduce. Run this for a few trillion years and you end up with what we see - a universe which appears to have the fundamental constants (like the speed of light) set to such a perfect value to support life. Change any of the fundamental numbers and no life can evolve because the universe would either collapse or not form suns.
With Smolin's theory this is explained. It isn't that the universe is 'fine tuned' to support life. It is evolved to produce black holes and it just so happens that any universe that produces black holes must have the same value of the fundamental numbers - which also allows it to support life.

Lovely theory......

If Smolin theorized that, why would the birth of another universe be happening on our plane? Conjecture would state that then our universe is the birthplace of all other universes? Once again trying to state that our universe is the center of all other universes?

[Baniboy 3]

Gravity bends space-time, light particles' route bends with it. A black hole is not a vacuum that sucks light from everywhere. Light CAN'T escape after it has reached the horizon. Light has to 'bounce back' so you can view the object. The escape velocity required to do that is greater than the speed of light. All the paths are bent back to the singularity.

With things coming out of it you either mean the shower or the x-rays. The shower is accelerated matter that has escaped. The x-rays come from matter being heated before it crosses the event horizon. Nobody ever said it comes from the black hole itself. It's said everywhere that you can't have direct information from black holes.

Then what happens to it, Just a black nothingness that roams around freely with no purpose? I find that hard to believe that there are things in this universe that have no purpose. I was always under the assumption that matter was never made nor destroyd only rearranged for other uses?

What happens to it? I don't know. There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective, get over it.
Who said that matter gets destroyed? Don't assume things which you can't prove.

It's fun to make your own hypotheses and stuff (I do that a lot) but make sure you check the physics first.
I hope you could make some sense out of it though I was a bit harsh, but ask if you need more info.

[zanzibarjones 1]

Gravity bends space-time, light particles' route bends with it. A black hole is not a vacuum that sucks light from everywhere. Light CAN'T escape after it has reached the horizon. Light has to 'bounce back' so you can view the object. The escape velocity required to do that is greater than the speed of light. All the paths are bent back to the singularity.
With things coming out of it you either mean the shower or the x-rays. The shower is accelerated matter that has escaped. The x-rays come from matter being heated before it crosses the event horizon. Nobody ever said it comes from the black hole itself. It's said everywhere that you can't have direct information from black holes.



What happens to it? I don't know. There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective, get over it.
Who said that matter gets destroyed? Don't assume things which you can't prove.

It's fun to make your own hypotheses and stuff (I do that a lot) but make sure you check the physics first.
I hope you could make some sense out of it though I was a bit harsh, but ask if you need more info.

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too?
No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.
Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

[Bikerman 2]

If Smolin theorized that, why would the birth of another universe be happening on our plane? Conjecture would state that then our universe is the birthplace of all other universes? Once again trying to state that our universe is the center of all other universes?

Actually quite the opposite. We would simply be the result of a BH in another universe (our parent) and there would be nothing special about this universe at all. Each universe exists in a separate 4-D spacetime and the blackhole punctures that spacetime and brings into existence another universe in its own 4=d spacetime.

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too? ;)No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

I didn't say it was a fact. I said it was an hypothesis - big difference. It is underpinned by some theory and does not contradict current theory, so it is not pseudo-science. Smolin is a respected physicist so it is not nonsense.
There would be no purpose - that is the whole point. This theory says we are here because we just happen to be here - no special reason other than we evolved in a universe that has black holes....

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

No, you are confused about a couple of things.
1st - science makes no claim to truth. The most we ever claim is that we have a good model (theory) which seems to work for all the observations and tests we can throw at it.
2nd - using your 'own head' is not a great idea in science. Science works by collaboration and each person builds on, or uses, the result of others. You cannot expect to apply common-sense and understand the universe - who said the universe had to be built according to the common sense of a brain evolved to shout at other apes about food and sex?
3rd - Scientific theory rarely changes. Hypothesis (scientific estimates or best guesses) do change - but that is the whole point. Science works by opening up the current theory and saying OK - Prove I am wrong. It is the only human world view that does this and that is the great strength of it - which is why the scientific method is so staggeringly successful.
It means that weak or silly theories never make it. Only theories which have fought against the best of the rest actually make it from being a hypothesis to a proper scientific theory.

[Baniboy 3]

Well i guess I am assuming just as the scientists are assuming they know what happens in a black hole, that it actually exists and that they are what they sat they are. If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do. As you said, "There is no universal law that everything has to have a purpose from your perspective". I agree. So who says they are right too? ;)No you're not being harsh. That is what these discussions are for, to discuss.

Well now you're not making any sense. Scientists can tell to an extent by using the knowledge available which is consistent with reality. Your false physics on the other hand suggest that you watched a documentary on black holes and decided to write something up without doing the math or researching the subject. You are telling they are made up without bothering with the physics OR math and with no evidence what so ever. About the who says they are right too, what they say is consistent with reality, while what you say is not. And then you continue on saying how it's impossible that something exists and does things in space without purpose. Don't watch documentaries on black holes because most of what they say are what I would call "amazing facts" and speculation which serve no purpose to you without an explanation. You can't understand advanced physics by jumping right in. Ignore the speculation parts and focus on the actual science, which is consistent and can be proven by evidence.

I guess all I am am saying is that don't believe everything that a scientists says. They change their theories and truths all the time, because they do not know.Use your own head and your own science knowledge to try and figure stuff out on your own, because in a few years or decades or whatever, i am sure their theories will change about what is what and how it works.

Science is a self-correcting process, the theories are changed when they are not consistent with the discoveries like when they found that brain cells do renew. While your made-up arguments don't reflect reality.

Yes, like you used your own head and your 'science knowledge' and came up with "they say nothing can escape from it but then say something can and that's why it's wrong", no thanks.

[anwiii 17]

did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed again, bani? if you listen carefull, you will understand what he is trying to say. he is not trying to say one thing, but many things at once. what he says may not make any sense, but who is to judge who makes the most sense when we are talking about theories. i wont even agree with bikerman when he concludes we are talking about hypothesis. we are talking about theories that are not based soley on fact herei too am interested in black hole theories. all he is doing is trying to talk about the possibilities and maybe learn something from different perspectives. be patient my dear bani.... :)bikerman, i liked that one theory you stated. i just don't understand it fully. does that mean when you enter through a black hole, you enter in to another universe that is younger than you exitited from? if so, the when ZAN commented about a funnel, then he was somewhat correct. sort of like a one way funnel. but i am still unlclear as to where you will enter the newer universe from. obviously you are entering from a black hole but that would discredit the possibility that nothing can exit from a black hole. so i am sorta confused with this theory. also would the new universe that was created be a duplicate of it's parent universe? that theory also suggests that you can't have a universe without a black hole? now it's sounding a bit like the chicken or the egg. what came first....the universe or the black hole.... i am misunderstanding that theory i think.disclaimer for bani- i know nothing about black holes or the physics to even explain them at all!

Edited August 21, 2010 by anwiii (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

bikerman, i liked that one theory you stated. i just don't understand it fully. does that mean when you enter through a black hole, you enter in to another universe that is younger than you exitited from? if so, the when ZAN commented about a funnel, then he was somewhat correct. sort of like a one way funnel. but i am still unlclear as to where you will enter the newer universe from. obviously you are entering from a black hole but that would discredit the possibility that nothing can exit from a black hole. so i am sorta confused with this theory. also would the new universe that was created be a duplicate of it's parent universe? that theory also suggests that you can't have a universe without a black hole? now it's sounding a bit like the chicken or the egg. what came first....the universe or the black hole.... i am misunderstanding that theory i think.

No, it remains impossible (or unknown) to pass through a BH - you would spaghettify as the gravity differential grew and be fragmented before you hit the singularity. You are also accelerating at a huge rate which would itself kill you.
There is no passing between the universes under current physics - thats why it is an hypothesis - we currently have no way to test it. It could be called science-philosophy I suppose, but it contradicts no laws so I call it an hypothesis.

Basically as each universe is 'born' it will have the same or similar values for the fundamental constants as the universe that is the 'parent'. The child universe will then either develop black holes (which is the same as becoming a parent) or it won't - in which case it will evolve as universes evolve and die, if that word can be used, childless.
This process will then favour universes with black holes so they become the norm - though others may still form is the constant still vary a bit...
There are many values possible for the fundamental constants (there are 6 of them) :-
e (elementary charge) = 1.602177×10-19 C
εo (permitivity of free space) = 8.85418782×10-12 F/m
µo (perm liability of free space) = 4π×10-7 N/A2
ћ (Planck constant)=1.05457×10-34 Js
G (gravitational constant) = 6.6726×10-11 Nm2/kg2
c (speed of light) 3*10^8 m/s
Edited August 22, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Baniboy 3]

Look, science is used to predict the future (or just what happens and why), and because we benefit from knowing what happens in the future, we use it. What this guy is doing is nowhere near it, and it doesn't reflect reality. No I didn't wake on the wrong side of the bed, I'm doing this because I'm trying to show the difference between using information to conclude something and concluding something with incomplete knowledge about the subject, though I do understand that he was just making up his own conclusions. But it's kind of ridiculous to make a conclusion that contradicts evidence unless you can prove that theoretically. A black hole is simply an object that requires a greater escape velocity than the speed of light. That is the definition.

If you have never seen, nor been to or through a black hole then you can't say for a fact that they exist or do what you think that they do.

If you have never seen my grandfather die, been there when he died or buried him yourself how can you know my grandfather died?
Through indirect evidence of black holes, they are concluded to exist. You don't have go through a black hole to tell that they pull particles around them. And that is why you are wrong.

[Bikerman 2]

Look, science is used to predict the future (or just what happens and why), and because we benefit from knowing what happens in the future, we use it. What this guy is doing is nowhere near it, and it doesn't reflect reality. No I didn't wake on the wrong side of the bed, I'm doing this because I'm trying to show the difference between using information to conclude something and concluding something with incomplete knowledge about the subject, though I do understand that he was just making up his own conclusions. But it's kind of ridiculous to make a conclusion that contradicts evidence unless you can prove that theoretically.

What evidence is being contradicted? Smolin wouldn't hypothsise in contradiction of existing law - he is a professional physicist and he does know his stuff. Yes, this is speculative as I said before, but not pseudo-science or nonsense.

A black hole is simply an object that requires a greater escape velocity than the speed of light. That is the definition.

Well, close. If you delete 'simply an object that' and replace it with 'a region of spacetime with a gravitational field so intense that it' then you have it.

Through indirect evidence of black holes, they are concluded to exist. You don't have go through a black hole to tell that they pull particles around them. And that is why you are wrong.

Yes, the only evidence possible yet is indirect. But it is very good evidence - a lot of binary star systems have now been examined where one of the partners can only really be a black hole, unless a lot of other theory is wrong...

[anwiii 17]

see bani, we had this debate before about definitions. i will NEVER accept a scientific definition from a theory that hasn't been proven. sorry bud. that means i don't accept the definition you gave because most likely it is incomplete.my whole point in jumping in is not only am i interested in other peoples views on a very interesting topic, it's nice to imagine the what ifs once in a while even if you say the evidence doesn't support it. the evidence why have NOW may not support it but while new evidence is gathered, i am so the theories will evolve from the new evidencealso, although most of the experts in this field of black hole theories believe they exist, some are still reluctant to believe they do. so bani, are you going to tell an expert that they aren't doing their math? you give a definition of a black hole, but before we can actually PROVE they exisit, how can there be an accurate definition?