/sci/ - Science & Math

something very small that has absurd weight. Imagine shrink the earth to the size of a basketball, the gravity towards such a small object because of its weight would crush anything and suck anything into itself.

Well even a eutron star is just something like a single star sized giant atomic core consisting only of neutrons. Even they don't form matter anymore in a way that we are familliar with. And considering that black hole is even denser...

>>2130631

dude i know its heavy.. i want to know what is made of.. gee reading comprehension dude?? do you use it?.

>>2130635
so you are sayin black holes are made of subatomic particles that arent capable of forming elements?

They are made out of matter which has been compressed to the point of having no volume. Maybe for semantic reasons it shouldn't be called matter while in this state since volume is a property of matter; but whatever you want to call this stuff it was the matter of a star before it collapsed.

>>2130635

neutrons constantly decay into hydrogen atoms with a half-life of 15 minutes or so, even in neutron stars. its just that the gravity almost instantly crushes them back into neutrons. neutron stars are mostly neutrons but have some protons and electrons as well.

we don't know what black holes are made of, but we do know they are not made of matter. the gravity is in excess of the quark degeneracy force and therefore no particles of normal matter can exist. it can just be thought of as a point that contains all of the energy of the star in the form of pure gravity,

Really dense shit. I wouldn't think it'd matter what it was composed of as long as it was dense as fuck.

I think
maybe
perhaps
nigger.
I hope you get raped by a pack of wild niggers you fucking cunt. I hope someone takes a knife and literally rapes your cock with it cock sucking mother fucker.
I love you

>>2130647
so you are saying you can have gravity without matter???

MMMMM

ITT: no one is answering Ops question.. I'll monitor this thread cos im curious about how literate /sci/ is in cosmology.. high school kids answering so far.

if theres no compelling answer i would step in

>>2130657
This is only a mindfuck if you're using Newtonian gravity. According to Einstein gravity can result from energy because mass and energy are both manifestations of mass-energy.

>>2130657

Mass-energy equivalence.

>>2130669

so you are saying that black holes are made of condensed energy? and what differentiate "condensed energy" vs actual matter.. emergence??

>>2130676
if this is true arent we supposed to spot relatively easy those "waves" of gravity when a supernova explodes?

the mass-energy thingy seems kinda bullshit.. and everyone just stopped replying

>>2130622
Black holes are generally just strong fields of gravity sucking into itself. There's other stuff to it, but in basic it's gravity.

>what are black holes made of?

If we precisely knew that, we wouldn't call them "black holes"

we don't call them black because they're black, because they're not. We call them that because they have an event horizon that precludes us from observing them.
Now die.

>>2130666

THEM TRIPS

>>2130734
dude... fuck off?.. i was wondering if there are any theories that explain where the huge gravitational force comes from.. instead of "its just gravity" which makes no sense. or "ITS COMPACT MASS LOL.." i read about it and everyone even classify black holes as in "mass" seems like an outrageous statement if we don't even know if mass is causing such gravitational field.

>>2130721
read above.

>>2130694

We do not know what exactly is in there, and can never look directly inside because no information can ever leave the event horizon. All we know right now is that compression forces of that magnitude are so great that not even quarks can exist, and yet the intense gravitational field persists anyway.

>emergence

You're going to need to define this in terms of its application in this context, so that we know what exactly is is that you are asking.

>>2130716
>arent we supposed to spot relatively easy those "waves" of gravity when a supernova explodes

Where'd you get that notion?

>the mass-energy thingy seems kinda bullshit

The universe is rather ambivalent about what people presume must be bullshit. It'll go ahead and do it anyway. We can either figure out why or remain ignorant.

Of course we already know mass-energy equivalence isn't bullshit because we have strong evidence through the processes of nuclear fusion and fission. When these processes release energy, mass is measurably lost from the end products in direct proportion to what is predicted by the theory.

Black holes have matter, yes. They are caused by gravity overcoming the strong force. It crushes particles into smaller subatiomic particles.

Neutronium

>>2130780

That's neutron stars.

Singularities don't exist, as time dilation approaches infinite the closer they get to a point, meaning they will never be properly formed.

Therefore black holes have no composition, because they don't exist.

We know that when a black hole is created by a collapsing neutron star that the neutrons are crushed out of existence, they cease to be neutrons. We have seen that all matter has a wave aspect, and quantum mechanics describes the behavior of these waves. So, we shall think about representing the mass-energy inside the event horizon as waves. Now, what kind of waves are possible inside the black hole? The answer is standing waves, waves that "fit" inside the black hole with a node at the event horizon. We know that the energy represented by a particular wave state is related to the frequency and amplitude of its oscillation, higher frequency waves contain more energy.

>>2130716 "waves" of gravity when a supernova explodes?

After a supernova you get a black hole and a big cloud of gas. The combined mass of these is almost exactly that of the original star. There's only a slight drop in mass due to mass-energy conversion, which has no affect on the resulting gravitational pull in Einsteinien gravity.

Compressed matter that no longer is strong enough to support it's self at the atomic level.

Aren't black holes just really really condensed matter?

With high matter, and small size, it has immense gravity, that even light can't escape it's orbit.

>i want to know what is made of
The density is so great the matter doesn't really have shape/structure as we know it, atoms collapse on themselves, quarks as well. Its not made of "stuff" that takes up space, its just an infinitely dense point/ball mass, thats the idea anyway.

>>2130758
Actually black-holes are fields of gravity that can grow so strong it can break down particle/mass/energy to the bare basics and convert them into itself. Whatever "mass" a black-hole has could be from what it consumed.

>>2130758
>if we don't even know if mass is causing such gravitational field.
According to relativity: gravitational fields are when a body of mass manipulates and moves the space around smaller bodies of mass near it (and those bodies of mass manipulating smaller bodies than it).

>>2130764
>You're going to need to define this in terms of its application in this context, so that we know what exactly is is that you are asking.

Well if matter is condensed energy. it seems that in vacuum it has the property of forming hydrogen atoms.. thats what i meant with emergence.. it theres so much energy condensed yet nothing we can identify as matter is emerging i.e quarks .. yet it behaves as it has mass

whats going on then? are there any theories for this?

thats my question. i thought someone knew some theories for this.

>>arent we supposed to spot relatively easy those "waves" of gravity when a supernova explodes

yeah i was just wondering. if we have observed a supernova actually happening. i thought the explosion might affect the gravitational field around the star. In the case that is just the energy of the explosion and not particles interacting with space disrupting the gravitational field.

>The universe is rather ambivalent about what people presume must be bullshit

i accept it works at nice conditions, but i was wondering if that still works inside black holes, if its just condensed energy.. what is keeping it together??.. why is not being dissipated.

Nobody knows.

I think it's fair to guess that some force, acting over like a Planck length, keeps the thing from collapsing entirely. Matter falling into to black hole would never reach the bottom and just keeps radiating away at teh event horizon.

But the matter from the original supernova falls in and...like I say, my bet is some kind of quark-gluon plasma or some such.

>>2130827
>>2130829
knowing that not even fucking quarks can exist and yet saying that is just "stuff" is not very compelling
.

lol nigger holes

>>2130861
so if there are black holes of different sizes, yet all of them are compressed into an infinitesimal space, why we have black holes with stronger/weaker gravitational fields??

are this black holes compressing its "mass" even further than what the plank length allows to?

stating the above would be outrageous, i know but i don't think i would get comprehensive answers from /sci/ tonight.

Arent any cosmology or physics majors around here?

>>2130862
I'm sorry, did you expect a simple, easy to understand answer... to black holes?

After you're given up on that one try these

What is gravity?
What is matter?
What is energy?

bonus points: avoid circular arguments/definitions

ok fine. I'll stick my neck out and say:

inside black holes is a dense quark-gluon plasma.

at around one planck length there is a new ultra-strong force which can balance even gravity.

prove me wrong.

Time literally stops inside a black hole.

In a way, that matter has ceased to exist.

>The truth that we are sinners, that we have defied God, that we have offended Him, denied His authority, and put ourselves in the wrong with Him. This website IS about the eternal consequences of our sin, the judgment we deserve for our rebellion, and the only way we can be put right with God.

>Read about George Orwell's 1984

>Look outside the window

OH SHIT IT'S HAPPENING WW3 ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MARTIAL LAW POLICE STATE BIG BROTHER FFFFFFUUUUUUUUU

the absolute basic building block of matter.

when we find what it is, we'll tell you.

>>2130849
>why is not being dissipated.

via virtual pair production.

Consider a virtual electron-positron pair produced just outside the event horizon. Once the pair is created, the intense curvature of spacetime of the black hole can put energy into the pair. Thus the pair can become non-virtual; the electron does not fall back into the hole. There are many possible fates for the pair. Consider one of them: the positron falls into the black hole and the electron escapes. According to Feynman's view we can describe this as follows:

The electron crosses the event horizon traveling backwards in time, scatters, and then radiates away from the black hole traveling forwards in time.

i know that traveling backwards in time is an outrageous statement.. but thats what Feynman said

>>2130877
>I'm sorry, did you expect a simple, easy to understand answer... to black holes?
Yes, actually. There's tons of those out and around. I'm sorry you're not clever or intelligent enough to understand it in simple terms.

>>2130666
>>2130888
them TRIPS

>>2130891
so how did you correlate.. a timeless space with no matter, yet it behaves as it has matter?

a black hole is a niggers anus powered by a vacuum

>>2130898

Gravitational collapse causes matter to break into its most basic components.

With the magnitude of gravity in a black hole, this hypothesis is very likely to be true.

>>2130885
>mfw everyone just ignores an actually reasonable answer

It's also possible that angular momentum keeps the thing from falling all the way in. So, I'll modify my answer to 'inside a black hole is a rapidly spinning quark-gluon plasma'

>>2130940
you could just said "because god wills it" and would be as valid as your answer.

>>2130941
there are some black holes that dont have angular momentum.

>>2130941
so you are actually saying that theres space between particles that form the black hole? so there are black holes with different volumes?

>>2130904
I hope you realize it took about 100+ years for people to understand calculus well enough to be able to simplify it into the type of language that is used to teach high school kids.

"proper" calculus, i.e. measure theory, functional analysis, is not at all simple.

Not that you care, you're probably just trolling.

tl,dr; read a book

>>2130946

because god wills what exactly?

>>2130946
show me one.

>>2130898

This is probably true, but since we don't know what is the smallest unit of matter is yet, it's moot to discuss it in those terms.

>>2130898

pure energy?

>>2130964
A Schwarzschild black hole

>>2130950
different event horizons? yes.

different densities? can we just agree that it's in the ballpark of a planck density?

>>2130986
again, show me one.

Sgr A* has angular momentum. Active galactic nuclei have angular momentum. I dunno if 1979c has a known angular momentum yet.

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the first, and simplest, force that could balance gravity is torsion.

>>2130849
>it seems that in vacuum it has the property of forming hydrogen atoms.. thats what i meant with emergence

A black hole is hardly a vacuum, despite the similes people use to describe them.

>if we have observed a supernova actually happening

We observed a star explode in the galaxy M100 thirty years ago. Recently the aftermath has died down enough to take a look through the supernova shell, and we've discovered that the star's remains are now a black hole. NASA recently had a press release to announce this finding. It's significant largely because even though our theories had predicted the phenomena long ago, this is the first time we've directly observed black hole formation.

>i accept it works at nice conditions, but i was wondering if that still works inside black holes

Hop in and find out.

But seriously, it's rather obvious that gravity is keeping it together, regardless of whether we think that gravity should exist just because we don't yet understand the state of matter within.

Also black holes do dissipate slowly via Hawking radiation thanks to quantum fluctuations at the event horizon, but given the rate at which this happens I wouldn't want to have to wait around to watch one to fizzle out.

>>2130862

Are you presuming there isn't a state of matter after quark degeneracy?

>>2130990
>planck ballpark

I just tried to picture that and my mind's eye went to a very weird place.

>>2131005
you mean show you a real example??? LOOL there only 50 blackholes that have been discovered.. Although, he did prove it mathematically.. so stop being a fag.

>>2131040

Mathematical proofs pertain to math.

>>2131040
>mfw you laugh off the notion of experimental evidence

I'm definitely settled on 'rapidly spinning quark-gluon plasma'. Here's a ref:

http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=199

>>2131023

>Are you presuming there isn't a state of matter after quark degeneracy?

Im not that guy but what if after subatomic particles they just turn back into energy?

A big ol black hole made of mass less, volume less energy that for whatever reason has gravity

yep

>>2131008
yeah i didnt imply it was.. i was just wondering if hydrogen or heavier elements or even any type of particle still forms in such conditions..

does the hawking radiation vary? Also.. what type of radiation is this? its observable? its exergy?

Actually, i was thinking...what if there is no true simplest form of matter? Like the matter just continuously degenerates and shit and as such a black hole doesnt have a real sort of form. Its literally a point of degeneration.

>>2131058
>>2131043
dude 50 black wholes in the entire fucking universe is not an acceptable statistical sample.. dont be such a bitch.

i know there's no conclusive evidence that show they exist.. but at least they have been proven mathematically and thats something. we knew that matter was made of atoms way before we actually observe them, so sure im not saying your theory or w/e is wrong.. i guess its besides the point anyway, but at least it has more approval than your theory. So you should at least consider that.

in b4 HERP DERP formal world vs real world

>>2131061

actually, mass and energy are one and the same.

E=MC^2

>>2131125

/sci/ fails again
go back to your troll physics, my major is better than your major, or atheists vs religion threads.

>>2131061
>but what if

But what if they turn into unicorns?

Blind speculation just isn't useful.

>>2131081
>does the hawking radiation vary?

The rate of radiation is exponential and inversely proportional to the black hole's mass.

One would have to shrink to less than a million metric tons (this is negligible mass as far as black holes go) before the decay rate becomes so rapid that what's left basically explodes.

>what type of radiation is this?

A virtual particle from a particle/antiparticle pair formed though quantum fluctuation at the event horizon (typically an electron & positron) becomes realized when its sibling quantum tunnels into the event horizon (and is therefore lost forever) before the two can mutually annihilate.

The realized particle may be flung away from the black hole by immense velocity imparted on it, in which case the black hole loses mass in proportion to the particle's mass and kinetic energy.

It seems counterintuitive that the black hole could lose mass after it "ate" a virtual particle, but since the space the particle pair came from cannot fall below the zero point, that energy must come from the black hole. It effectively swallowed a negative quantity of energy.

>its observable?

Tiny artificially induced event horizons (eg: refractive index perturbation) produce Hawking radiation.

>its exergy?

I wouldn't expect to do any meaningful work with it.