Message boards :
Science (non-SETI) :
Black Holes part 2
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 35 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
I have seen lights zigzagging in the night in 1966, unlike airplanes or satellites. That is my only experience of UFOs. They were Unidentified Flying Objects. Tullio |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
- black hole collapses in a more dense state of matter...but we don't know which state is it! Is it a dense state of matter? So why did Leonard Susskind and Steven Hawkin argued about information loss for a decade? They argued about it because matter are destroyed and lost in the center of a black hole. Hawkin said also that information is lost. Susskind said no. Cannot happen. Information loss is impossible just like energy cant be lost. Leonard and Steven has now come to an agreement to another theory. The holographic principle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlvzfaUcTqc The long story:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f9d7XZu8UQ |
Lynn Send message Joined: 20 Nov 00 Posts: 14162 Credit: 79,603,650 RAC: 123 |
WOW! Monster black hole wakes up after 26 years Over the past week, ESA's Integral satellite has been observing an exceptional outburst of high-energy light produced by a black hole that is devouring material from its stellar companion. X-rays and gamma rays point to some of the most extreme phenomena in the Universe, such as stellar explosions, powerful outbursts and black holes feasting on their surroundings. In contrast to the peaceful view of the night sky we see with our eyes, the high-energy sky is a dynamic light show, from flickering sources that change their brightness dramatically in a few minutes to others that vary on timescales spanning years or even decades. On 15 June 2015, a long-time acquaintance of X-ray and gamma ray astronomers made its comeback to the cosmic stage: V404 Cygni, a system comprising a black hole and a star orbiting one another. It is located in our Milky Way galaxy, almost 8000 light-years away in the constellation Cygnus, the Swan. http://phys.org/news/2015-06-monster-black-hole-years.html |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11358 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Good read, the astronomers are having fun with this one. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Definitely black holes are about physics, NOPE...Black holes r all about physics! chemistry & nuclear reations r present in a star engine... those stop working even in Neutron stars! Let alone Black holes... Quantum mechanics is the only line of science that has explained Black hole more in detail...but still we don't know much about another threashold of matter on which Black hole is condensed! ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
According to "Il Corriere della Sera" the ALMA telescope array has discovered a black hole in galaxy NGC1097 with a mass equivalente to 140 million Suns, in the Fornax constellation. It is reported in the "Astrophysical Journal". Tullio |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
I just want to know about the black hole where all my money seems to disappear to each month! it's a Holy trinity: state, bank & wife! :D non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
My money goes to utilities, electricity for my computers, telephone line + ADSL, gas for heating in winter. Then condominium expenses, money for a new grasscutter, a paring down my trees every 4 year, etc. Tullio |
Lynn Send message Joined: 20 Nov 00 Posts: 14162 Credit: 79,603,650 RAC: 123 |
New article. Astronomers discover 'monster black holes' Discovery suggests there may be millions more 'supermassive' black holes in the universe than were previously thought Five monster black holes that were previously hidden by dust and gas have been uncovered by astronomers. The British-led discovery suggests there may be millions more "supermassive" black holes in the universe than were previously thought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11719914/Astronomers-discover-monster-black-holes.html |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
The British-led discovery suggests there may be millions more "supermassive" black holes in the universe than were previously thought. From the article. Supermassive black holes are powerful cosmic "drains" sucking material into a point of infinite density formed from the compressed mass of hundreds of thousands to billions of suns. Kip Thorne, A longtime friend and colleague of Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan, says: "There is no matter in a Black Hole, only warped space and time" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1AfkPQa6M And infinite density... There is no such thing. It would mean infinite amount of matter. |
SciManStev Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 6651 Credit: 121,090,076 RAC: 0 |
That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. Just speculation on my part, and may be completely wrong. Steve Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Applying the heisenberg uncertainty principle to the singularity gets rather interesting. As we know the size to be zero we then have no information on the momentum, which is mass times velocity. Clearly though we know the mass and velocity. Other interesting things happen at those scales with quantum wave functions which describe the probability of existence at a given point. As the singularity is a mathematical point, the probability is zero. So we know there is some other physics going on here. |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. There is a difference between mass and matter. Matter is easy to understand but mass... As energy and mass are convertable so what's the problem with that matter "disappears" and warps space and time? |
SciManStev Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 6651 Credit: 121,090,076 RAC: 0 |
That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/sciences/what-is-the-difference-between-matter-and-mass
I wasn't aware that they were separable. I have read that a black hole does have size, depending on the mass. In my mind that single particle would have a size greater than zero. If I am wrong, and a black hole truly has zero size, then that is really mind bending, as the event horizon is at different distances from the center depending on the mass of the black hole. As I said, I am just speculating, using my current knowledge as a basis, and may be completely wrong. It makes for some fascinating thinking though. Steve Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website |
Cactus Bob Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 209 Credit: 10,924,287 RAC: 29 |
Is not mass a measurement of matter? Comparing the two is like comparing fuel and velocity as far as I understand. There is no mass if there is no matter. Now when we get to something like a singularity i think our understanding sort of fails. Science has yet to find some way to properly define this very well. scimanstev's idea if the big bang happening from a ultra, super (dare I say massive) black hole is interesting. I rather like it, even if inflation & dark energy suggest it is unlikely. my 2 cents (with inflation maybe even less) worth Bob Sometimes I wonder, what happened to all the people I gave directions to? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SETI@home classic workunits 4,321 SETI@home classic CPU time 22,169 hours |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Science has already defined a singularity. A place in the universe where space is zero and time is zero. Matter has mass. Warped space and without matter also have a mass. I would like to say that matter is a physical object and mass is a property. Matter need space, mass doesn't. The hypothesis that the big bang happened from a giant black hole is not new. Some call it White Holes. |
SciManStev Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 6651 Credit: 121,090,076 RAC: 0 |
I realize that the white hole idea is not new. I guess it is like the quantum world. The actual reality doesn't make a lot of sense. Entanglement, the two slit experiment, and objects passing through each other given enough time are great examples. It is much easier to think about something that seems to make sense, than something that defies every attempt to assign sense to it. I am really hoping that we will learn what dark matter and dark energy actually are at some point. They may or may not shed some more light on the good old black hole.... Steve Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
What is the difference between matter" and "mass"?" I would hazard that at the singularity, matter - particles, no longer exist and only energy is trapped. Perhaps given enough time every black hole eventually has a big bang? And yes, the size of the event horizon depends on the mass inside, and the shape on the rotation. |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
The British-led discovery suggests there may be millions more "supermassive" black holes in the universe than were previously thought. if that was true, we wouldn't have "rotating BH"...'cause we wouldn't have matter to rotate! & we know that some of BH rotate... ;) That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. there is a limit, 'cause the greater the BH, the greater is evaporation of BH...so there is a limit of intake & evaporation, but no one has calculate it! ;) That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. thermodynamics says nothing can disappear! only transform into sthg...probably pure energy or some other state of quantum energy... but nothing disappears! That is a tough one. The known math kind of crumbles at that point, but clearly there are black holes of different strengths. That would imply to me that matter is inside a black hole, but not in a form we are used to. I keep thinking, perhaps incorrectly, of a singularity of mass. We are used to elementary particles, but if you remove all distance between those particles, you end up with one particle of no elementary particles, no quarks, bosuns, or strings, just pure mass. Since most if not all galaxies have at least one super massive black holes in their centers, and one was recently identified as having the mass of a trillion suns, I wonder if there is a size limit. I may be wrong again, but if there is a size limit, it might explain our present universe, as the result of the gravity of a supper, supper, supper massive black hole, collapsing in on itself, and immediately transforming into pure energy via E = MC^2. That doesn't explain inflation, but the temperatures were so great there must have been unknowns yet to be quantified. believe me, it doesn't have a radius of 0! how do I know that? the bigger the BH, the bigger the Event horizon...& EH is what we see, 'cause they are (from time to time) most brilliant emanating light sources in Universe! ;) also, it's difference when speaking to someone about BH tends to 0 radius & tends to infinite mass (if u remember limes in math)...& the actual 0 radius & infinite mass... btw, BH with radius 0 evaporate withing miliseconds... ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
if that was true, we wouldn't have "rotating BH"...'cause we wouldn't have matter to rotate! Its the electromagnetic and gravitational fields that are rotating. Stable black holes can be completely described at any moment in time by these eleven numbers: mass-energy M, linear momentum P (three components), angular momentum J (three components), position X (three components), electric charge Q. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy thermodynamics says nothing can disappear! only transform into sthg...probably pure energy or some other state of quantum energy... I didn't say that something disappears. The matter is converted to gravitational energy that is the potential energy associated with the gravitational field. The law of conservation of energy still applies:) |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.