Black Holes part 2

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 35 · 36 · 37 · 38

AuthorMessage
Cosmic_Ocean
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Dec 00
Posts: 2913
Credit: 10,886,926
RAC: 506
United States
Message 1830149 - Posted: 12 Nov 2016, 22:43:13 UTC

My understanding about black holes/singularities is that at some point when it evaporates and loses mass.. it stops being a black hole because the gravity is no longer strong enough to break the laws (as we understand them presently) of physics.

I've got a few theories about black holes myself, from an entirely novice understanding of the way things work. I have no formal education on astrophysics or anything like that, but I've watched just about every documentary on Discovery/History/Science Channel, Horizon, Nova, and a few from the BBC.. so while I don't know anything about the actual equations, I can visualize and understand the big-picture and the end-result of said equations. So.. I suppose my understanding is more from a cosmology viewpoint.

But my theories about black holes are basically just questions that I've thought of myself that I haven't seen answered or disproven in said documentaries.

I can lay the theories out here in this thread if you guys would like, or I can make my own thread for it.
Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)
ID: 1830149 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 1
Sweden
Message 1830166 - Posted: 12 Nov 2016, 23:55:25 UTC - in response to Message 1830149.  

My understanding about black holes/singularities is that at some point when it evaporates and loses mass.. it stops being a black hole because the gravity is no longer strong enough to break the laws (as we understand them presently) of physics.

I've got a few theories about black holes myself, from an entirely novice understanding of the way things work. I have no formal education on astrophysics or anything like that, but I've watched just about every documentary on Discovery/History/Science Channel, Horizon, Nova, and a few from the BBC.. so while I don't know anything about the actual equations, I can visualize and understand the big-picture and the end-result of said equations. So.. I suppose my understanding is more from a cosmology viewpoint.

But my theories about black holes are basically just questions that I've thought of myself that I haven't seen answered or disproven in said documentaries.

I can lay the theories out here in this thread if you guys would like, or I can make my own thread for it.

Black holes is a very good example trying explain gravity.
A problem though is that what happens beyond the event horizon is impossible to figure out.
So far scientists can only observe the event horizon and for now it seems like matter loses its properties there.
Meaning that all theories are still theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
ID: 1830166 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2275
Credit: 1,929,734
RAC: 202
Message 1831131 - Posted: 18 Nov 2016, 3:05:36 UTC - in response to Message 1830149.  
Last modified: 18 Nov 2016, 3:16:28 UTC

In my opinion, that of a Black Hole possibly losing mass by means of evaporating is perhaps not the main point when it comes to me.

If you are able to make a reference to why this could be of any importance, I would be happy to know.

Matter is the constituent of which the Universe is being built upon.

The Laws and Equations we know that comes from such matter, including the transformation into energy by means of E=mc2, are because we think of the elementary particles as representing energy and therefore radiation.

When the Universe was being created, at the moment of the Big Bang itself, everything was only elementary particles and therefore radiation.

We find the different particles by means of looking at the figure for the Standard Model in the Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Next, these different elementary particles by means of their separate classes, or positions in the given table for the Standard Model are then supposed to explain at least three of the four Fundamental Forces in nature and possibly all four.

Again, while we should be aware that both Newton, as well as the theories of Einstein of gravity and possibly time as well for the latter are not necessarily given in the same context as that of the Standard Model.

We are therefore supposed to believe that the Laws and Equations for the elementary particles of the Standard Model should be available or present because we think of these particles as representing energy.

If the presence of the graviton has yet to be proven, could it next be a Boson, in the same way as the Higgs Boson?

Or could it perhaps be more likely that everything should be viewed in a more tree-level syntax, where the different particles are branching downwards in their respective parts of such a tree, based on their individual properties?

If I am not wrong, a recent discovery suggests that gravity could be both matter and energy at the same time.

Therefore we need to know what both of these things in fact are supposed to be.

Next becomes the question about Quantum Theory and Quantum Matter and whether or not such things could first be explained and next be included into the Standard Model.

Possibly I am repeating myself above, but for now I do not see any clear answer to these questions.

Also reading the rest of the article below the figure in question and it has become more or less rewritten.
ID: 1831131 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2275
Credit: 1,929,734
RAC: 202
Message 1831139 - Posted: 18 Nov 2016, 4:06:58 UTC
Last modified: 18 Nov 2016, 4:08:09 UTC

So why do we sometimes confuse entertainment and fiction with that of science?

Is it perhaps because the first of these two are supposed to make some people able to earn their money?

Or could it perhaps be Meryl Streep in the role where the question about life and the possible right to die when circumstances makes such a thing being a possiblity?

Tears in the rain, or at least becoming visible.

Science, like that of number crunching could in fact become part of your life and sometimes it could be up and running, while at other times it could be down for the rest of the day, because such a thing could be part of your life.

Still, even when at sleep, a couple of things could come up in your mind and next such a thing could be able to put any such ideas into a given context and in such a way make new possibilities becoming available when it comes to given contents.

Science is about using your mind at times and it next depends on the time of the day.

Look at the Kardashev scale once again and we are supposed to be much concerned with the subject of energy.

Energy could be both produced consumed, as well as consumed.

Next, energy is a product of matter and not the opposite way.

The Big Bang was created by means of radiation by means of energy and still we are supposed to believe that all this energy next makes up matter.

Part of research being carried out during the 20'th Century was the discovery of radiation coming from heavy elementary particles, which made scientists able to conclude that most such radioctive elements could be transformed, or downgraded into less heavier elements and finally becoming the element Lead (atomic number 82).

For this research we should probably be grateful towards the pair Marie and Pierre Curie for their discoveries.

Whether or not this happened to be scientific research or knowledge, events being part of history made for the development of the first atomic bomb, during the Manhattan project.

The man in charge for the military part, or aspect for this project was General Leslie Groves, while the similar person in charge for the scientists was J. Robert Oppenheimer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Groves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

If for some reason the current theme when it comes to dealing with science is not that of the atomic bomb, we most likely are rather dealing with such subjects like Dyson Spheres, because these could be the structures being used by possible extraterrestrial civilizations in order to harness energy from a given star for their own survival.

Most likely the question about energy production and consumption may not be questioned in any way, but possibly we could still be doing such a thing when it comes to the possibility of other civilizations in space.

Gravity, as being a force, could be the possible fuel meant for an engine which could be used by such intelligences and next we could make such things UFO's and the like and next perhaps believe in them as well.

The matter of truth is that in fact we happen to be still linked to our own Earth, but or curiosity has already brought us other places in the solar system, including the planet Mars.

Energy is still an area of research and such a thing like controlled fusion are part of experiments being carried out into such research.

If for some reason there could be a possible alternative to that of neutron stars, or Black Holes, we could be speaking about possible Wormholes.

Humans are still both producing as well as consuming energy for its own survival, but nature is also doing such a thing, but most likely without having any intelligence being part of it.

If you happen to be a scientist, your mind could at some times bring you other places, including those which might not exist in reality.

If you therefore happen to question the presence about such objects being part of space, are you next supposed to be questioning our own existence in a similar way and next whether or not such a thing could be applied to that of other intelligent civilizations as well?

Because you could at times perhaps believe so, any ideas that you might have could start up being silly or stupid ideas, but next perhaps ending up being somewhat meaningful.

This is what science is supposed to be all about, at least when it could be part of your life.

Therefore science should not be thrown away either, when it possibly becomes available.
ID: 1831139 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,556
RAC: 143
United States
Message 1831149 - Posted: 18 Nov 2016, 6:06:31 UTC

According to this scientist our universe may exist in a super massive black hole https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1831149 · Report as offensive
Profile Grant Nelson
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 May 12
Posts: 7208
Credit: 3,730,613
RAC: 48
United States
Message 1833371 - Posted: 30 Nov 2016, 19:36:29 UTC

I'm glad I found this site.

We don't know the universe by a lot and that's what makes it so interesting.
ID: 1833371 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,556
RAC: 143
United States
Message 1833391 - Posted: 30 Nov 2016, 21:08:58 UTC - in response to Message 1833371.  

I'm glad I found this site.

We don't know the universe by a lot and that's what makes it so interesting.

What site? The one I provided a link to?
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1833391 · Report as offensive
Profile tullioProject Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6300
Credit: 1,686,496
RAC: 1,669
Italy
Message 1835573 - Posted: 12 Dec 2016, 14:28:24 UTC

"Le Scienze" online edition publishes an article which says that the gravitational waves detected by the LIGO observatories have an echo which is due to the fuzzy nature of the events horizon, which, according to some theorists has both an inner surface and an outer surface, GWs should oscillate between the two surfaces and emit echoes. The "Le Scienze" article refers to an article on "Nature" magazine of December 9. I have read the online edition of "Nature" searching for the article but could not find it. "Le Scienze" is the Italian edition of "Scientific American" and has some license to publish material from "Nature".
Tullio
ID: 1835573 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 35 · 36 · 37 · 38

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2


 
©2017 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.