/sci/ - Science & Math

3+1 dimensions.

>>2590158
3d

think of it as a ball, and anything that comes within a certain distance of it gets sucked in

What dimensional plane is space?

>>2590165
So like this?

>>2590172

yea

>>2590178
Okay, thank you for your help.

Ok so... imagine something really massive like a bright star. The light escaping the star is going the "speed of light" and thus, we see it. As the volume of the star becomes smaller (the result of a supernova) and the hydrogen is burned away, the star "collapses" - however, the mass remains the same. Because the star has condensed, the gravity becomes amplified at its "surface" and at this point in time the gravity is actually equal to the speed of light. Thus the black hole "sucks" in all the light it would otherwise be emitting until there is nothing but "empty" gravitational mass.

Such is my understanding of black holes anyway, essentially super-massive former suns that are no longer capable of being luminous. I'm sure someone can take this description and make it make sense, and I don't know if I really answered your question, but... yeah.

>>2590167

Space isn't a plane, it has 3 spacelike dimensions, and one timelike dimension. Look up "Minkowski space".

>>2590172

Embedding diagrams actually give people the wrong idea about black holes. The height component of them doesn't actually exist, it's purely for illustration purposes, and I suppose it maps 3-dimensional space to a 2-dimensional plane. If you were to "see" a black hole, it would just be a very dense point of mass floating in space, not like this <<<

>>2590193
So just a black mass of nothingness?

The event horizon of a black hole is moving outward at the speed of light. But because of the extreme curvature of spacetime in between it and the rest of the universe, it doesn't get anywhere.

>>2590200

Imagine a black balloon, with the singularity in the middle, and the surface of the balloon is the event horizon.

>>2590201

Lolwut

>>2590200

not nothing. A shit ton of supercompacted mass.

>>2590211
Just so tightly compacted no light can escape? Or no light can enter?

This is actually a strange question that you are asking.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

This article says that the black hole can actually be "encoded" in 2 dimensions, because the entropy is proportional, to the area. This "holographic principle" came from hawking's investigation of hawking radiation. The matter that gets sucked into the black hole can deform the gravity of the event horizon, and then that the hawking radiation can be described by these deformities. This "solves" the black hole information paradox, that supposes that the matter sucked in is "lost" to entropy. But the theory says that the entropy of the black hole is proportional to the area of the event horizon, which means that the black hole can be "encoded" in 2 dimensions, compared to if the entropy was a volume.

Anyways, really weird, don't really understand it

>>2590207
http://www.google.com/search?q="event+horizon"+"null surface"

>>2590212
So tightly compacted that anything which comes within its gravitational pull, including light, will be pulled into it, "recombobulated" and shot out into another dimension. Or such is my understanding.

>>2590216

I still don't believe that it is moving.

>>2590212

The black hole has so much mass that it warps spacetime back in on itself. Light keeps traveling at lightspeed but there is literally no direction it can travel that will lead out of the black hole. Think of it like walking on the earth. Since it is round, no matter how far you walk in a straight line, you will never leave the earth, but will instead return to the point you started at.

Is a black hole really a "hole" so much as it is a super dense star?

How do they know that it "tears time and space" and it's not just a huge black star sitting in space?

>>2590231
What do you think a null surface means?

Anyway, motion is relative, but to any observer on the event horizon, the event horizon is moving outward. At the speed of light. That's basically the definition.

>>2590254

I'm curious as to what you believe a null surface is. All it means is that the normal vector to the surface is 0.

>>2590252

Black hole is just a name. It's an object so massive that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light a certain radius from its center, and it's so compact that this radius extends beyond the mass itself.

So, we can't see it and anything coming closer than this Schwarzschild radius to it disappears from our sight and can never escape.

>>2590301
And what do you think it means for a nonzero vector to have length 0?

>>2590301
You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Light-like_interval

Now explaning why a surface will have a lightlike normal vector exactly when that surface is moving at the speed of light would take a little more work, and I'm not going to teach geometry in this thread. But you should learn some special relativity -- in the modern four-vector formulation -- if you're interested.

theres nothing on the bible about black holes
ITT: some 20 years old virgin losers watched too many hollywood movies

>>2590435

0/10

Basically, a black hole would be better termed a hypergravity point, right?

Anyway, black holes are interesting. I wonder if we'll ever all be condensed into a single point. Would another big bang occur? What could trigger it?

>>2590305
We can "see" it.

it functions 11 dimensionally, recycling matter and energy back into the multiverse

>>2591584

[citation needed]

When mass enters the event horizon, what happens to it's location? If you were measuring the changes in gravitational pull as an object enters a black hole, triangulating it's position, what course would it take?

>>2591622

some kind of orbit i think from an outside perspective. More or less a straight line from the perspective of the object though.

>>2591622
>what course would it take?
Straight into the black hole, adding to it's mass and increasing the event horizon

>>2591634

scratch that that's what happens to light. Mass gets sucked up entirely. It would look like a spiral from the outside if you could see in though. But again from the objects perspective its a straight line.

>>2591534

>artists rendition

>>2591622

As far as the object is concerned, nothing is any different inside the event horizon. It continues on its orbit until it reaches the singularity.

>>2591704

I'm actually looking at this as part of my dissertation. I'm in the middle of plotting the orbit of a particle using the Schwarzschild metric. It encounters a coordinate singularity at the event horizon however, so I will have to use Painleve coordinates to plot the orbit inside the horizon.

tell me, why can't a black hole just be a star that sucks everything against itself, instead of being a "hole"?
Maybe we just can't see the matter pressing against the black hole because it sucks the light in to it too?