I found this great website, full of multimedia and with lots of information. Enjoy!

Black Holes

Tiare Rivera.-

---

My photography world

merci . . .

de rien....hahahaha ;)

Tiare Rivera.-

---

My photography world

I was very interested in black holes until an old buddy of mine decided to try to get me to understand what he was studying/researching (he just got his bachelors in physics in the honors program, going to Waterloo in the fall - best math/physics U in Canada). Right now, he's working on determining the temperature of black holes - Yes, they have temperatures. I know this is a bit off the original topic but I think it would make a good addition to anyone interested!

He started by telling me that some things CAN escape a black hole - namely photons. Basically it goes something like this: Quantum physics tells us that photons are not in x place at x time, in fact, they only possess a certain probability that it will be in x place at x time. A photon on the very outer edge of the spherical event horizon of a black hole (at the edge, the photons are basically stationary, moving outwards at the speed of light but being pulled equally inwards by the immense gravitational pull of the black hole) may indeed have an extremely high probability of being inside the black hole, but there is a mathematical probability for some (many, really) photons that they may at some point be located outside the event horizon (keep in mind we're talking miniscule measurements here, but outside the event horizon nonetheless).

Now, photons are always referred to as having no mass, which is true, but they do have energy, which is interchangeable with mass. A single photon, though massless, does contribute to the gravitational pull of a black hole. So, when a photon finds itself outside the event horizon, the event horizon of the black hole actually shrinks in radius ever so slightly (too many zeros to type - probably would take years of holding down the '0' key). In a way, the photon actually tunnels itself outside of the black hole with a "probability shovel". Through its probability of being outside the event horizon, it eventually shrinks the event horizon enough to escape. Follow me? I didn't explain it nearly as well as he did......

Anyway, it follows that many photons actually do escape black holes. So, if perhaps you find yourself sucked into a black hole and squished into a photon, don't lose hope! Just try to take up residence on the edge of the event horizon!

---

I was very interested in black holes until an old buddy of mine decided to try to get me to understand what he was studying/researching (he just got his bachelors in physics in the honors program, going to Waterloo in the fall - best math/physics U in Canada). Right now, he's working on determining the temperature of black holes - Yes, they have temperatures. I know this is a bit off the original topic but I think it would make a good addition to anyone interested!

He started by telling me that some things CAN escape a black hole - namely photons. Basically it goes something like this: Quantum physics tells us that photons are not in x place at x time, in fact, they only possess a certain probability that it will be in x place at x time. A photon on the very outer edge of the spherical event horizon of a black hole (at the edge, the photons are basically stationary, moving outwards at the speed of light but being pulled equally inwards by the immense gravitational pull of the black hole) may indeed have an extremely high probability of being inside the black hole, but there is a mathematical probability for some (many, really) photons that they may at some point be located outside the event horizon (keep in mind we're talking miniscule measurements here, but outside the event horizon nonetheless).

Now, photons are always referred to as having no mass, which is true, but they do have energy, which is interchangeable with mass. A single photon, though massless, does contribute to the gravitational pull of a black hole. So, when a photon finds itself outside the event horizon, the event horizon of the black hole actually shrinks in radius ever so slightly (too many zeros to type - probably would take years of holding down the '0' key). In a way, the photon actually tunnels itself outside of the black hole with a "probability shovel". Through its probability of being outside the event horizon, it eventually shrinks the event horizon enough to escape. Follow me? I didn't explain it nearly as well as he did......

Anyway, it follows that many photons actually do escape black holes. So, if perhaps you find yourself sucked into a black hole and squished into a photon, don't lose hope! Just try to take up residence on the edge of the event horizon!

This sounds like an alternate explanation for Hawking Radiation. Interesting idea.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no problem with black holes, but a big problem with the concept of a dimensionless singularity at their center.

Now I feel vindicated in string theory with the idea that strings have a minimum length beyond which they can't be compressed by any amount of gravity -- therefore no singularity, just a crushed blob of stuff where nobody would want to be, but with a nonzero radius.

My idea originally was that gravity doesn't occur without an equivalent amount of mass which must contain the strong, electromagnetic and weak forces in the same proportion as in my cup of coffee. Each of these forces is vastly more powerful than gravity. But if they can't hold up mass against the gravitational force inside a black hole, which I strongly doubt, I'll be happy with the minimum size of strings.

I just don't "believe" in singularities.

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no problem with black holes, but a big problem with the concept of a dimensionless singularity at their center.

I have to agree...thats one I have a problem with also.

pure conjecture but... if a black hole exists and you are out in space at a safe distance so you dont get pulled in, you see the background starfield with a big "nothingness" in it. if atoms can be compresed.. which they can, then there must be some limit to the compression.. and yes I know some/most of the atoms might just turn into some form of radiant energy due to the mind-boggling pressures... whos to say that just because we cant "see" the "stuff" past the event horizon, that there isnt in fact a planet sized mass of "stuff" there, attracting any and everything around it.

did someone else say in another thread that black holes can explode and release the "stuff" and "energy" back into the known universe??

there must be some/lots of mass there or else we have violated physics laws, action/reaction conservation of energy etc..

or perhaps we just dont know enough yet to realise that we are still cavemen in our scientific understanding.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no problem with black holes, but a big problem with the concept of a dimensionless singularity at their center.

I have to agree...thats one I have a problem with also.

pure conjecture but... if a black hole exists and you are out in space at a safe distance so you dont get pulled in, you see the background starfield with a big "nothingness" in it. if atoms can be compresed.. which they can, then there must be some limit to the compression.. and yes I know some/most of the atoms might just turn into some form of radiant energy due to the mind-boggling pressures... whos to say that just because we cant "see" the "stuff" past the event horizon, that there isnt in fact a planet sized mass of "stuff" there, attracting any and everything around it.

did someone else say in another thread that black holes can explode and release the "stuff" and "energy" back into the known universe??

there must be some/lots of mass there or else we have violated physics laws, action/reaction conservation of energy etc..

or perhaps we just dont know enough yet to realise that we are still cavemen in our scientific understanding.

Here is a qualitative description that I had used in a previous discussion.

A burning star has electromagnetic energy flowing out and gravity pulling it in.

Eventually the star burns off its fuel and the electromagnetic energy fizzles, but the gravity is still there.

Gravity is sometimes stronger than the structural integrity of the atoms in the star. This happens when the star is very massive to begin with. The atoms collapse and a neutron star is formed.

Gravity is sometimes even stronger than strong nuclear force that maintains the neutrons' structral integrity. This happens if the star was very, very massive. The star continues to collapse into something even denser than a neutron star.

At a point not much beyond the density of a neutron star, the star's escape velocity at its surface exceeds the speed of light. This is the Schwarzschild radius, and it is when the star becomes a black hole.

Within the event horizon of the black hole, nothing known to us can escape. The general relativity model holds that there is no repulsive force greater than the strong nuclear force, so gravity now has free reign to collapse the star's mass to a point. This is called a singularity.

It is entirely possible that at some point between a neutron star and a singularity another force unknown to us could stop the collapse. Maybe there is such a thing as a quark star. However, once the mass has shrunk below the Schwarzschild radius, it behavior to the outside world is set: anything that goes in never comes out. There is theoretical Hawking radiation that can indirectly leech enegy from a black hole, but that's a complication that isn't needed to explain the overall process.

Quantum mechanics does a better job of explaining the extremely small that does general relativity. If we want to model precisely what happens within a black hole, we will need to tap that 'expertise.' The idea of zero size and infinite density is unpaletable to many.

The problem is that quantum mechanics basically ignores gravity. On the size scale of subatomic particles, a moving neutron is subject to a relatively huge electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces and such a relatively puny gravitational force that quantum mechanics can ignore gravity and still make correct predictions. The reason is that the amount of gravity tugging on the "left side" of the neutron is virtually identical to the amount of gravity tugging on the "right side". Said another way, the gavity gradient is so small as to be virtually flat. Quantum mechanics assums that it is flat, and all the experiments to date haven't been bothered by it.

Within a black hole, the gravity gradient across the diameter of a neutron would not only be significant, but it would be the dominant force in the area. The space upon which quantum events take place is no longer "flat." By analogy, now we're playing ice hockey on a rink that's tilted at 70 degrees, and expecting the puck to behave as it had on a flat rink is absurd.

With a theory that correctly includes gravity in quantum mechanics, a theory pre-named quantum gravity, we would be able to model exactly what the inside of a black hole looks like. Maybe it is a 'quark star' occupying a tiny but measurable amount of space with a huge but finite gravitational pull at its surface. Maybe if the star is massive enough it really does collapse to a point. Right now, we simply do not know.

(the above was edited very slightly from the original, for clarity)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I also had a problem with the "dimensionless point" concept and am happy current theories give it some size. To exist in our universe something has to, well, exist in our universe. Dimensionless points didn't seem to fill that requirement.

The use of the phrase "escape velocity" in defining why a black hole is black seems insufficient to me though. It's got to be more complicated than that. Earth, for example, has an escape velocity of about 25,000 MPH at low earth orbit. That's how fast the Apollo craft had to go to get to the moon. The TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) burn added about 7,000 MPH to their velocity to take them from orbital speed (18,000 MPH) to escape speed. That was neccessary because of limitations of our technology. If we had a propulsion source that was capable we could have gotten to the moon at 55 MPH. It would take a ridiculous amount of energy though. Just get 55 miles furthur away every hour until you get to a point where the moon's gravitational force is stronger than the earth's. Better yet, just get yourself in front of the moon and let it crash into you. (Living through the experiment is optional)

Consider a truly ultra-massive black hole, give it an event horizon the size of our galaxy. At that size tidal forces would not be significant at the event horizon, you could travel within the event horizon and survive. In fact whole star systems could exist within the event horizon. Any inhabitants of those systems would be stuck inside. They can't use the above mentioned trick to escape without achieving "escape velocity". At least that's how I've understood it, but I was never entirely sure why not. I assume it has to do with required energy. Or maybe it's this "curved spacetime" bit. The route loops back inward.

Black holes confuse me :-(

---

Black holes confuse me :-(

Because they are not real

---

TEAM
LL

Consider a truly ultra-massive black hole, give it an event horizon the size of our galaxy. At that size tidal forces would not be significant at the event horizon, you could travel within the event horizon and survive.

True.

In fact whole star systems could exist within the event horizon. Any inhabitants of those systems would be stuck inside.

I don't think so. If you're at the event horizon then you'd have to travel at light speed to stay in orbit.

Once you go in, you can't stay in an orbit any more, even at light speed. No matter where you're heading, you'll end up in the center of the black hole.

They can't use the above mentioned trick to escape without achieving "escape velocity". At least that's how I've understood it, but I was never entirely sure why not. I assume it has to do with required energy. Or maybe it's this "curved spacetime" bit. The route loops back inward.

Black holes confuse me :-(

Regards Hans

---

I don't think so. If you're at the event horizon then you'd have to travel at light speed to stay in orbit.

Once you go in, you can't stay in an orbit any more, even at light speed. No matter where you're heading, you'll end up in the center of the black hole.

The Apollo astronauts were orbiting fine before they strove for escape velocity. Besides, speeds get funky under these circumstances.

---

I have a problem with the formation of a black hole. In a previous thread, for example, I pointed out a reference that pointed out that in order to warp space in a 100m sphere, you need more mass than contained in the visible universe. Yet somehow, it's allowed in a blackhole if you have a comparable size black hole. A black hole is effectively creating a spot in space that warps space so profoundly that nothing can escape. Effectively speaking they are the same thing.

In order for a black hole to form, it would have to be almost instantaneous and this is why you would need some large mass.

It was pointed out that the star burns out. It enters a cooling cycle and the heavier elements that formed incur less motion from the kinetic energy due to their mass. So, they collapse. The type I super nova, a relative to the "black hole", release lighter elements than the type II super nova cousins. One might imagine a larger event that comes back to releasing more lighter elements. For example, iron collapses and releases helium and neutrons. The nuetrons are contained my the degenerative nuetron gas. But, now, with the amount of energy involve and the momentum being transfered to individuel neutrons, some neutrons are bound to escape this cloud. Even though neutrons have extraordinary long half-lifes, some will decompose back to hydrogen and thus thwarting the loss of the initial kinetic energy through buring and heavier element formation. You can tell it's happening to because they are releasing huge amounts of neutrinos, although it release neutrinos for collapse and decay.

To bypass this, a large amount of mass would be needed to surpass the rate of dissipation. This is why super novas explode. The amount of mass needed to actually collapse is quite large. Until I am shown a ball of matter actually collapsing at least the size of a galaxy, even though it really should take the mass of a universe or more, I will continue not to believe in them. That is to say, not matter collapsing to form a galaxy but a galaxy comparible to our own that is in the space of the galactic core.

---

TEAM
LL

I also had a problem with the "dimensionless point" concept and am happy current theories give it some size. To exist in our universe something has to, well, exist in our universe. Dimensionless points didn't seem to fill that requirement.

The use of the phrase "escape velocity" in defining why a black hole is black seems insufficient to me though. It's got to be more complicated than that. Earth, for example, has an escape velocity of about 25,000 MPH at low earth orbit. That's how fast the Apollo craft had to go to get to the moon. The TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) burn added about 7,000 MPH to their velocity to take them from orbital speed (18,000 MPH) to escape speed. That was neccessary because of limitations of our technology. If we had a propulsion source that was capable we could have gotten to the moon at 55 MPH. It would take a ridiculous amount of energy though. Just get 55 miles furthur away every hour until you get to a point where the moon's gravitational force is stronger than the earth's. Better yet, just get yourself in front of the moon and let it crash into you. (Living through the experiment is optional)

Escape velocity is the instantaneous velocity needed to escape a gravity well without any further thrust. If you could fire a gunshot at the surface of the Earth at Earth's escape velocity, the bullet would not return. Just as lifting a weight up is more energy-efficient than using a ramp, but the ramp makes the power requirements feasible... a single impulse to escape velocity would be the most efficient, but long burn times make the exercise feasible.

In general relativity terms, the vehicle's future light cone has Earth in front of it blocking a big part of the middle, but if you can move fast enough "to the side" then you can dodge the Earth. The Earth's gravity magnifies how much of the light cone it blocks, over and above what it would do from its size alone.

With greater surface gravity, an object can occupy more and more of a vehicle's future light cone. As one approaches a black hole, the black hole's mass blocks a disproportionately huge portion of the future light cone. When the vehicle crosses the event horizon of a nonrotating black hole, the mass at the center of the black hole blocks the entire future light cone. It's a bit more complicated if the black hole is rotating: in that case the entire future light cone is within the event horizon but only the vast majority of it is actually blocked by the central mass.

The reason you can levitate away from the Earth at 55MPH is because the Earth is exerting a 1G acceleration, and impelling a velocity of 55MPH against that drag is certainly possible. The hard part is keeping up that thrust for a quarter million miles.

The reason this does not work with a black hole is that the acceleration from gravity is so great that no amount of sub-lightspeed velocity for any length of time will get you out.

Consider a truly ultra-massive black hole, give it an event horizon the size of our galaxy. At that size tidal forces would not be significant at the event horizon, you could travel within the event horizon and survive. In fact whole star systems could exist within the event horizon. Any inhabitants of those systems would be stuck inside. They can't use the above mentioned trick to escape without achieving "escape velocity". At least that's how I've understood it, but I was never entirely sure why not. I assume it has to do with required energy. Or maybe it's this "curved spacetime" bit. The route loops back inward.

Black holes confuse me :-(

The route does loop back inward. Although a vehicle sent into such a black hole might take eons to actually hit the central mass, no mass within the event horizon can ever travel away from the central mass... this is not an environment suitable for star system formation.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I have a problem with the formation of a black hole. In a previous thread, for example, I pointed out a reference that pointed out that in order to warp space in a 100m sphere, you need more mass than contained in the visible universe. Yet somehow, it's allowed in a blackhole if you have a comparable size black hole. A black hole is effectively creating a spot in space that warps space so profoundly that nothing can escape. Effectively speaking they are the same thing.

They are not the same thing. A warp bubble is an arbitrary arrangement of negative energy that, as far as we know, never occurs in nature. A black hole does not involve negative energy, just lots and lots of positive gravity.

Think of the trampoline analogy for space. If masses are moved smoothly along the surface, they create depressions within the surface. If we take the slope of the depression as an informal representation of escape velocity, we recapture Newtonian physics. Negative energy appears when waves are generated... the "upswing" of the surface represents negative energy. The warp bubble requires us to build an elevated ring around a mass, and for a useable geometry this requires a ludicrous amount of negative energy.

Putting an extremely dense onject on the surface exerts a massive amount of positive energy. The slope of the gravity well is so steep that its impossible to climb (without the aforementioned warp bubble!). General relativity predicts that the mass occupies a single point, so in the middle of the gravity well the sides are actually vertical. Lots of people, myself included, have problems with this prediction.

Unfortunately, the general relativity rules governing the trampoline fabric have their limits... this trampoline fabric also has a "weave" to it governed by quantum mechanics. We know the properties of this weave when the fabric is basically unstretched, but what about under the strain of that point mass?

In order for a black hole to form, it would have to be almost instantaneous and this is why you would need some large mass.

It was pointed out that the star burns out. It enters a cooling cycle and the heavier elements that formed incur less motion from the kinetic energy due to their mass. So, they collapse. The type I super nova, a relative to the "black hole", release lighter elements than the type II super nova cousins. One might imagine a larger event that comes back to releasing more lighter elements. For example, iron collapses and releases helium and neutrons. The nuetrons are contained my the degenerative nuetron gas. But, now, with the amount of energy involve and the momentum being transfered to individuel neutrons, some neutrons are bound to escape this cloud. Even though neutrons have extraordinary long half-lifes, some will decompose back to hydrogen and thus thwarting the loss of the initial kinetic energy through buring and heavier element formation. You can tell it's happening to because they are releasing huge amounts of neutrinos, although it release neutrinos for collapse and decay.

To bypass this, a large amount of mass would be needed to surpass the rate of dissipation. This is why super novas explode. The amount of mass needed to actually collapse is quite large. Until I am shown a ball of matter actually collapsing at least the size of a galaxy, even though it really should take the mass of a universe or more, I will continue not to believe in them. That is to say, not matter collapsing to form a galaxy but a galaxy comparible to our own that is in the space of the galactic core.

I tried to explain earlier why it doesn't take that much mass/energy to form a black hole. Warp bubbles are deforming space in ways it doesn't "like" to move, while black holes are simply extreme consequences of what comes "naturally" to space.

Smashing a glass sculpture is easy because it "works with" entropy... putting it back together again is vastly more difficult because it requires "negative entropy". Displacing the same amount of mass over the same distances would require far, far less effort in the first case than the second.

Edit for spelling.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Please explain why negative engergy of warping space is different than positive engergy warping space. I think the relativity is wrong for the simple reason that space was first defined as linear and then curved. It was formulated with and error but allows correct answers because of how it was formulated. The proper reference frame was lost. Anyhow... Getting on with the point.

I'm told that gravity bends space or for fanatics space-time. We "see" this with light curving around large objects (see Einsteins 1915 paper). I'm told that the escape velocity is greater than what even light can achieve. Let me point out that velocity_orbit needed to orbit a mass_1 at a certain distance r_1 is equal to the escape velocity_escape of an object from a distance of r_1. Thus velocity_obit = velocity_escape. Because of this, a black hole that achieves the attraction would have to warp space such that for a mass, velocity_escape is >= velocity_orbit. For warped space, the same is true, everything in the "bubble" is stuck in the bubble and cannot escape because it's bent around into a circular loop. So maybe one prevents anything going in and the other prevents anything from exiting, but it is the same effect.

The difference is that with a black hole, you use the mass to create the well and with warped space, you are theoretically creating the well without the mass. This is what makes them equal. They are simply approached from diffent directions.

The name of a black hole needs to change. Nothing can escape but NASAs been observing things escaping a black hole that they can't see. If something is escaping, it's not a black hole. If you can see it, it's not a black hole.

Nasa agrees that a black hole is warping space like this.

Astronomers want to observe the regions near black holes because they believe that a black hole's powerful gravity will warp the space and time next to it in accord with the bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory.
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2002/02-161.html

---

TEAM
LL

Please explain why negative engergy of warping space is different than positive engergy warping space. I think the relativity is wrong for the simple reason that space was first defined as linear and then curved. It was formulated with and error but allows correct answers because of how it was formulated. The proper reference frame was lost. Anyhow... Getting on with the point.

I'm told that gravity bends space or for fanatics space-time. We "see" this with light curving around large objects (see Einsteins 1915 paper). I'm told that the escape velocity is greater than what even light can achieve. Let me point out that velocity_orbit needed to orbit a mass_1 at a certain distance r_1 is equal to the escape velocity_escape of an object from a distance of r_1. Thus velocity_obit = velocity_escape. Because of this, a black hole that achieves the attraction would have to warp space such that for a mass, velocity_escape is >= velocity_orbit. For warped space, the same is true, everything in the "bubble" is stuck in the bubble and cannot escape because it's bent around into a circular loop. So maybe one prevents anything going in and the other prevents anything from exiting, but it is the same effect.

At the event horizon, velocity_escape equals c. Since no mass can achieve a velocity of c (or so we are told), all mass at that radius or less must be infalling.

The difference is that with a black hole, you use the mass to create the well and with warped space, you are theoretically creating the well without the mass. This is what makes them equal. They are simply approached from diffent directions.

Black holes still don't require negative energy to form (except what is incidental to any gravity fluxuation). Warp bubbles are theoretical constructs that would require unimaginable quantities of negative energy.

The name of a black hole needs to change. Nothing can escape but NASAs been observing things escaping a black hole that they can't see. If something is escaping, it's not a black hole. If you can see it, it's not a black hole.

You are talking about the accretion disk and Hawking radiation. These are both occuring near but outside the event horizon, influenced by the nearby black hole.

Nasa agrees that a black hole is warping space like this.

Astronomers want to observe the regions near black holes because they believe that a black hole's powerful gravity will warp the space and time next to it in accord with the bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory.
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2002/02-161.html

Deforming space is also called warping space. Star Trek used the term "warp drive" for a type of faster-than-light travel, which is why the research paper used that term. The series also introduced the idea of a "Soliton Wave" which is a warp-bubble-like deformation created by a fixed station to carry an object great distances without the object needing its own warp engines. Either of these specific methods of warping space would require negative energy. The formation of black holes does not.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

To replay what I've read about it (I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong):

Hawking radiation will eventually cause any black hole to evaporate, but "eventually" is an unimaginably long time for a large hole. It's a question of the curvature of the event horizon, i.e. the size of the hole.

Small black holes have steep curvature and exert much more effect on the nearby matter/antimatter particle pairs that pop spontaneously into existence throughout space. The particle pairs can do this without violating conservation of energy since their combined energy is zero.

The antimatter particle falls into the hole preferentially, contributing to its evaporation. The matter particle tends to remain outside where it can fly away. This the basis of Hawking radiation and the reason why "black holes are white hot", as Hawking says, due to a flood of energetic matter particles streaming away from a small hole.

Very small holes such as any created in the big bang would already have evaporated, ending in an explosive reaction at the very end and producing a burst of gamma rays. Large black holes will long outlast the stars.

---

I beleive that the purpose of Hawking Radiation, which has never been observed, is to provide an outlet of the energy from collapsing matter and to maintain symmetry. If it didn't there are serious infinity problems as the mass reaches zero point. The energy then can create particle pairs where some might escape.

All
measurements are made at infinity, where fields are weak, and one
never probes the strong field region in the middle. So one can't be
sure a black hole forms, no matter how certain it might be in
classical theory.
-Stephen Hawking 7/24/2004

---

TEAM
LL

You are talking about the accretion disk and Hawking radiation. These are both occuring near but outside the event horizon, influenced by the nearby black hole

No, I am not. I am referring to the collapse event that is before it's actually a black hole. It's a matter of dissipation. As the collapse happens, the heavier elements break apart to neutrons thus imparting the momentum to a smaller particle which means it has a much higher velocity so that it can escape. 15 minutes later, 1/2 the escaped neutrons not stablilized by the degenerative neutron cloud become hydrogen. Basically, it reforms Hydrogen from iron. In doing so, it allows kinetic energy to take over the collapse and blow it apart such as a super nova. The theoretical black hole requires more mass, but if it does not happen instantaneously, it has to happen quicker than the dissipative effects. All before it's actually a black hole.

So if they model a black hole with bose-einstein condensates, they have to stablize it or it collapses and end up with particle jets. On the lab scale of things, a stable containment can be acheived with magnetic containment and the cooling is by allowing the hottest particles to escape. This way, they can achieve ultra cold temperatures by some particle picking up a little more energy than another and escaping and leaving the cooler particle.

Now, how would this happen on the large scale? Consider your containment as gravity. Particles begin escaping which cools the matter even more but the collapse increases the heat. In the lab, they don't need to worry about additional collapse because it's not trying to go critical on a super massive scale. If it were, the jets would begin to increase exponentially. Ever seen a super fluid pop? There's no going back. Think back to the super nova now and why it explodes. The collapse is not quick enough to form a theoretical black hole and it gets turned into kinetic energy.

This is why I say the collapse has to be instantaneous. It has to overcome the dissipation of the particle jets as heat is generated in the actual collapse. For it to be nearly instantaneous, it would require more mass than our moon which is what a theoretical small black hole is. There is simply not enough matter to do it.

---

TEAM
LL