Black Holes

This information may have been posted elsewhere, but I couldn't find it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/15/black.holes.nasa.chandra/index.html?&hpt=hp_c1

I love astrophysics!

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Good article! I have wondered what happens to all the stuff that enters a black hole. Where exactly does it all go?

I believe this is where matter and anti-matter come into play and as it compresses into a singularity, matter is destroyed by anti-matter into a energy form that requires no space to contain. Just a theory though :)

I believe this is where matter and anti-matter come into play and as it compresses into a singularity, matter is destroyed by anti-matter into a energy form that requires no space to contain. Just a theory though :)

After reading all the theories and ideas presented in this thread, I can now say that I have a deeper understanding of exactly where I have been depositing my paychecks into.

I am really liking Garrett Lisi's idea on unified theory. Beyond that, I believe the concept of compactification in which we cannot see past the 3 dimensionsm due to our relative size, is where matter may "hide". I would see a black hole acting no different since this is suppose to be "unified" throughout our universe.

Isn't there a theory somewhere that says that the big bang was in fact a single black hole, that had swallowed up the entire universe. It got to the stage where it couldn't contain all the matter any more and just exploded?

It certainly would Robert! But if evrything we can see is constantly moving away from us, at whatever speed, what is it expanding into?

The only conclusion I can think of is that there has to be a super universe, and our own observable universe, which is part of it. This super universe may have billions of super massive black holes all over it, every so often one collects so much matter it just produces a big bang.

Eventually, the parts of our big bang will get gobbled up by another super massive black hole somewhere else, and that part of the super universe will have its own local big bang, and so on ad infinitum.

Because everything appears to be moving away from us in all directions, it's always been thought that us in the Milkyway Galaxy were around the fringe of the centre of the big bang, but I think that may have been disproved now.

All fascinating stuff!

It certainly would Robert! But if everything we can see is constantly moving away from us, at whatever speed, what is it expanding into?

... for a Black Hole to explode, ...

Has the process of exploding been theorized?

Sheep, the whole lot of you are sheep that follow any Shepherd that gets his article published in Nature magazine or Astrophysical journal! Sheep!!!

Lets be completely clear here!!
1. Albert Einstein was wrong in his theories! Johnney Guinness speaks the truth!
2. There are no black holes!
3. There are no singularities!
4. Matter never disappears, we can always explain where it goes!
5. There was no Big Bang! The Universe has always been here!
6. Energy is ALWAYS conserved!
-------
How do i know all this information is true when tens of thousands of scientists around the world all write scientific papers based on Einstein's work?

I know i'm right in my scientific findings because God told me! I asked God for help to solve the problems i was having in physics and he helped me. The Lord is my Shepherd, he has guided me through the valley of darkness when i was in times of trouble. And the Lord God showed me the light in physics when i needed guidance.

Thou shalt not follow false prophets like Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Nature magazine, Physics Review Letters, and Astrophysical journal. The Lord is my Shepherd and he leads me into the light (Electromagnetic radiation), the ever lasting light (There was no Big Bang either!). Never again will i be a sheep to the Shepherd's of science. There are no black holes! God told me!

John.
____________

Black Hole Mass Must Be Quantized, Say Physicists
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26978/?p1=blogs

Having focused for many years on the giant black holes that form when stars collapse and the supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, physicists have more recently begun to study microscopic black holes, with tiny masses.

One reason to think about these objects is that they may have been formed during the Big Bang and may still permeate the universe today. The existence of so-called primordial black holes is one possible explanation for the universe's missing mass.

Another reason physicists are interested in micro black holes is that some theorists predict that the Large Hadron Collider will produce them.

So the work of Gia Dvali and pals at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat in Munich, Germany, will be of great interest. These guys say that if black holes form on this tiny quantum scale, then their masses must be quantised.

Their reasoning is simple. If black hole mass is not quantised, then the mass could take essentially any value. And if that were the case, the rate of production of micro black holes would be infinite: they could form in any collision, at any energy.

Since that's clearly not the case, the masses of micro black holes must be quantised.

That immediately raises a number of important questions, not least of which is what governs black hole quantisation. Dvali and co reasonably argue that black holes must be quantised in units of the fundamental Planck length. But exactly how this would affect the way they spring in and out of existence isn't clear.

Dvali and co suggest that micro black holes would first appear in their lowest quantum state at the LHC in the form of some kind of quantum resonance, what particle physicists call a hump in their data. This would initially be hard to distinguish from an ordinary particle, but higher energy experiments ought to reveal black holes in higher states too.

For the moment, there's no way to work out at exactly what energy we should expect to see them. "To uncover the precise form of the quantization rule for lowest black hole resonances, we need more experimental input," says Dvali and co. Quite!

Of course, the question of this kind of black hole production at the LHC once again raises the thorny question of whether the safety assurances we've been given about these experiments are valid.

We've looked at the arguments before. One important question is whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is up to the task of making a trustworthy prediction that the LHC is safe.

Today's paper makes clear that our understanding of micro black hole physics is rapidly changing. So it would be entirely reasonable to ask on what basis physicists are able to make safety assurances.

(Let's put aside for a moment the question of whether particle physicists are in any position to make safety assessments in the first place, given that they have the most to gain from running these experiments.)

This is a debate that particle physicists are strangely reluctant to engage in, having ignored most of the questions marks over safety.

So this is a good opportunity to raise the issue again. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks (or puzzle over the deafening silence)!

Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5894: Black Hole Masses Are Quantized