/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4738319
It's a singularity. There are no sides.

A black hole is spherical. What do you mean by "other side?"

It a rusty glory hole

>>4738331
To avoid this the question could be rephrased as

"What do you think occurs within a black hole?"

However I feel this detracts from the core of the subject. "The other side" is meant to be interpreted as the side (or should i say interior?) we have no concrete understanding of.

If you go inside a black hole you can land any job you want, 300k starting.

>>4738319
Why did the black hole cross the universe?

To get to the other side!

Seriously, it's point of mass. There isn't any one side.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c
Both my image and link are trips into a black hole.

The singularity at the center of the black hole is an infinitely dense mass where physics as we understand it breaks down. The surrounding area is just space, but from afar it appears as a black envelope encompassing the black hole. This is because no light can escape upon getting that close to the black hole.

>>4738341
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI9CvipHl_c
Both my image and link are trips into a black hole.

The singularity at the center of the black hole is an infinitely dense mass where physics as we understand it breaks down. The surrounding area is just space, but from afar it appears as a black envelope encompassing the black hole. This is because no light can escape upon getting that close to the black hole.

>>4738341
There is nothing "within" a black hole because it has no volume.

>>4738356
This is a precise example of what I would like to avoid as it is a very standard viewpoint within science, leaving no room for interpretation. At this many will either be confused or aggravated, so please let me explain by breaking down a word that you used within your explanation: "infinity".

Within traditional science this word is used rather flagrantly, however within quantum mechanics it is taken much less lightly, it is understood that if you had a line segment between A and B, you could place a point anywere in between in an infinite amount of places barring the traditional limitations in place do the size of sub-atomic particles. However beyond this mode of thinking the use of the term infinite is null just as in practicality 100 percent is null for most applications. Within the quantum understanding of the cosmos everything can be assigned a finite value, "infinitely dense" is not possible except as defined by traditional science.

Now taking this into account, I would like to hear some more colorful responses. Do not be limited by what you have been taught or by how you interpret the question, whether or not your answer is what why or how, or by (for that matter) the traditional explanation for black holes that you have been taught.

>>4738388
ahhahaha youre throwing away truthful answers because you want something MAGICAL and INTERESTING

if you dont want traditional science and math then dont go on a science and math board

>>4738391
I'm not throwing away anything, I am fully aware of the current understanding of the topic. I am also aware of the limitations brought upon us by the stagnant way of thinking most all are being taught in school.

If this is not the place to discuss this then where do you suggest I go?

>>4738319
anything

>>4738396
Do not confuse creativity for stupidity. I.E. You

>>4738398

Nothing?

as why is to why not?

>>4738396
perhaps to another universe?

>>4738403
On the other side of the black hole is the other side of the universe. Because it's on the other side of where you're facing. Where's the mystery in that?

maybe the black hole's gravity is so intense that it actually creates a path that goes to an outer universe. think of a tetrahedron and make it spherical. then make a point of ultimate mass that pulls a piece of the outer rotating part of the 4rth dimension into it...

>>4738412
heh, congratulations you made me smirk
>>4738413
aww now thats boring. But let's try this, as stated at the center of a black hole is an "infinitely dense" quantum singularity. Operating under the "infinitely dense" idea, the singularity itself could be or could contain an alternate universe? no?

>>4738420
No because it's hyper compressed.
That's like asking if there's another universe on the head of a pin because there's a lot of atoms on it.

Well, similar idea. OP, you're an idiot and I hope you get hit in the head by a million dicks.

>>4738420
what part of something having infinite density means its a portal to "another universe"
are you for serious dude
this is like a kid posting zelda timeline theories on fucking gamefaqs

Sorry, I'm way out of my comfort zone on this board. Isn't a black hole just a super dense point that would kill you by ripping you apart if you get close enough? That being said there wouldn't be anything that could survive in those conditions worth looking at right? Also can someone explain why physics breaks as you approach the center of a black hole?

>>4738319
You know OP I heard that quantum physics means anything I want. Therefore you are purple in another dimension. Why? SCIENCE!

>>4738429
Intense gravitational forces. Fucking intense.

>>4738427
if the head of that pin were infinite in density then it would be infinite in mass, the probability of it containing another universe would be???

This is of course hugely flawed, but i find it entertaining to speculate.

>>4738444
This post is legit

>>4738396
>If this is not the place to discuss this then where do you suggest I go?

starbucks coffee

>>4738428
because the infinitely dense matter has so much gravitational pull that time/space can not exist as we know it. the quantum singularity is the higgs boson but it leads to an outer universe that exists in a different when and where but at the same when and where as ours

>>4738439
Stop violating causality!

>>4738445
Shit, I failed

>>4738445
i loled

so close

>>4738441
But captain the tachyon field is reacting in the antimatter reactor. We need to speed up the quantum dimensional force to create a higgs boson.

>>4738441
> the quantum singularity is the higgs boson but it leads to an outer universe that exists in a different when and where but at the same when and where as ours

>>4738459

oh you

>>4738459
shit i must be a neutrino

>>4738459
I KEEP CLICKING ON THE LINKS BUT IM GOING IN CIRCLES HELP?!?!?!

>>4738471
its a black hole man. you're in a new universe now but its atom for atom the same as the last one you just left

>>4738388

ummmm, there's magic and wizards and rainbows made out of candy. Is this the answer you were looking for? Are you satisfied? Can I go now?

>>4738438

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why are you saying there is an infinite mass in a black hole? We have no way of knowing - a black hole contains as much mass as is close enough to the singularity that it can't escape, no?

The only 'infininty' I find applicable here is that anything would requires infinite energy to escape the pull of gravity of a black hole.

>>4738500
Nice dubs.

>>4738439
Sort of ironic that you link to this. This is the majority of people as I have found. Everybody is always too busy trying to make themselves look smart/others stupid, to actually discuss things with me. It's always the same crap people regurgitating information from text books and telling anybody who even proposes challenging conventional thought that they are stupid.

it's sad really... I don't think im smart, i mean maybe i do compared to some people or i should say i know I am smarter then some, but not by any really appreciable amount. I tend to feel that humans are rather naive and stupid as a whole, mostly naive, to be more precise the ones that shun attempts to spawn creative thought are detrimental to new science and should stick to plugging numbers on there calculator (and that's fine somebody has to do it).

We are going nowhere without radical speculation, whether you accept it or not.

>>4738484
YOU ARE THE ONLY INTELLIGENT ONE IN THE UNIVERSE MAN.

I'm serious. While scientists and mathematicians are trying to figure out things that require physical proof, you are doing your best to uphold the scientific principle: pulling shit out of your ass and making it sound like you're more intelligent than people with PHDs because you do.

Totally. Maybe a black hole condenses matter into dogshit. Maybe we're all lucky that nothing escapes from its event horizon. If it ever did would we ever get a whiff...

>>4738484
intelligent design

>>4738484
their*, probably some others in there w/e im not an english major

>>4738480
If it were infinitely dense then wouldn't it also have to contain infinite mass? How else could something be infinitely dense? Unless I suppose if you were to assume it is infinitely small as well which just seems like it wouldn't be likely? then again probably no less likely then it actually being infinitely dense in the first place.

>>4738482
Thanks.

>>4738490
Piled higher and deeper.

>>4738496

It doesn't have to be infinitely dense, but to me, it seems like the density of a black hole is irrelevant. Or more like... We can't really know, and that's where our understanding of physics starts to break. Infinitely dense, sure. Infinitely massive, no.

I'm sure you know how black holes form in the first place, and according to that, they only need a finite amount of mass to form.

>>4738505
would you assume that the mass of said black hole is directly linked to the mass of the star that collapsed causing it?it must at least be directly proportional in some way?

>>4738319
just to get this clear, OP, you think the current theory of black holes is 'stagnant' regurgitated crap taught in schools? I would suggest that you know fuck all about modern theories of black holes, if you're interested there is a lot of debate going on about black holes but you actually have to look for it (hint: people doing research on black holes don't often frequent 4chan)

"just to get this clear, OP, you think the current theory of black holes is 'stagnant' regurgitated crap taught in schools?"

Wrong. I actually know very little about the current debates surrounding black holes and frankly i don't terribly care because I am confident that whatever the final conclusion may be that it will be quite anti-climatic. I like to discuss such things as a sort of exercise of the mind.

My big problem is I am a philosopher at heart but I feel like most philosophers unable and/or do not discuss the topics that I find fascinating.

To conclude this post, suck my nuts.

>>4738516

Well, yeah, the vast majority of the mass of this hypothetical black hole came from the collapsed star that created it.

I think you're missing some key knowledge of how and why black holes are formed. I can elaborate if you want.

Apologies for the time it took for me to reply, Cloudflare was being a dickhead.

>>4738540
No worries I would hardly say im waiting for you to reply, but glad you came back.

I understand how black holes form and that by principle the mass of the black hole comes from the start that created it, I was moreso curious about (hypothetically of course) determining a calculated mass via volume and density of the start that created or the mass of it if you would rather. If you have anything you think I would like to hear on the topic, please go ahead. I find all of this endlessly fascinating.

>What do you think is on the other side of a black hole?
One side is the past. One side is the future. One side is the present.
Not sure why I am posting itt.

>>4738537

I used to be much more interested in philosophy than I am now. I understand the fascinations behind philosophy, but I guess I outgrew it. If you say you're interested in it, but philosophers/people you would discuss it with are not into the same topic of stuff as you, it sounds like you're more of a scientific mind instead.

>>4738544

There is undoubtedly a direct relation between the volume and mass of the star that collapses into a black hole, and I believe you would be able to find such information on Wikiepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Formation_and_evolution

>>4738496
density != mass

If the sun were suddenly replaced by a black hole of the same mass, the planets wouldn't get sucked in

to be honest I think you want something you're not going to get OP

black holes are indeed mysterious but like its been said, there is no "other side" and even if you're refering to the other side of the event horizon its nothing a human mind would be able to comprehend

think about this though, just like the laws of physics break down at the singularity, so do the laws of physics break down when you're talking about distances smaller than the planck length

I guarantee you the denizens of /sci/ can provide some thought experiments based on that

>>4738537
>My big problem is I am a philosopher at heart but I feel like most philosophers unable and/or do not discuss the topics that I find fascinating.

Is it because they usually talk about philosophy instead of science?

>>4738319
A Black Hole has no other side, its a sphere with a singularity at its center. Anything else is on the realm of scifi .

>>4738396
There's a gateway to heaven OP. There are you satisfied with my no science and math reply?

>>4738396
Go here >>>/x/ there's no traditional science in here. There's no reality but hell you dont give a fuck about something so adulterated like reality!

>>4738556
this

I don't know where you got the assumption OP but black holes are not infinitely massive

Infinitely dense, yes; infinitely massive no.

the more massive they are the larger the event horizon is

>>4738537
As an engineer that took a course of the philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, if my philosophy professor ever read such irrationalities like what you have posted he would face palm so hard that he will have his hand marked permanently on his face.

>>4738566
He probably saw Star Trek or something. A Black Hole is an object with density = ∞, volume ~ 0 and a mass = x.

>>4738556
that mysterious side past the event horizon that you say the mind wouldn't be able to comprehend, is exactly what im curious about, perhaps my approach is misleading, I am not looking for a concrete correct answer because who knows? But I do find it fascinating to hear what people who are willing to cross the line of incomprehensibility, have to say. Thank you for your input.
>>4738559
Am I talking about philosophy or science? Or is it both?
>>4738560
Sci-fi without the fiction is how i would prefer to think about it. Why does it have to be fiction? Where is the line between speculation and fiction? is it acute or obtuse, narrow or wide?
>>4738562
Whatever you want to say about it is satisfactory. For all I know it could be somesort of portal to the heavens (pff). but you see, the portal idea I am now running with, while dropping the heavens idea.

>>4738573
>volume ~ 0
How about no, good try though.

>>4738574
maybe I misspoke

Its not that our mind wouldn't be able to comprehend it, its that our senses wouldn't

>>4738575
Well mathematically its close to Zero. Its mass is so huge that the true value of its volume is a non issue.

>>4738575
how else would you describe the volume of a singularity

>>4738574
>Whatever you want to say about it is satisfactory. For all I know it could be somesort of portal to the heavens (pff). but you see, the portal idea I am now running with, while dropping the heavens idea.
But there are no portals or anything. Matter just dissipates from the black hole.

I really suggest you try to understand the math involved. Its not as uninspired as you think it is. Its not easy but its quite beautiful. The best way to describe Black Holes is throughout Calculus.

>>4738563
/x/ is tripe
>>4738568
fuck your professor, there is a reason he was teaching. Seriously, why should I care what some cut rate twat of a professor of yours thinks about my irrationality.
>>4738566
You misunderstood. I don't think they are infinitely massive (really?). I have even ventured to say that the singularity cannot be infinitely dense either.
>>4738573
yada yada

>>4738585
Well for a philosopher to have a job is an impressive feat kid. He could be working at McDonalds. He knew a lot more than you IMO. At least he has his head in reality, unlike you kid.

>>4738559

you're talking about physics

>>4738585
>gives a physical representation of a black hole
>yada yada
Really bro, >>>/x/ is right up your alley. We really dont want people that dont want to learn the reality of the universe in here. Dont take it personally but in here we try to keep it as real as possible.

>>4738574

you're talking about physics

>>4738583
>dissipates matter
>niggeryoujustwentfullretard

also

what the hell

I guess I'll bite

you know how the sharpness of a knife is basically how thin it is. The thinner the knife edge the sharper the knife.

A theoretical knife with an edge as small as an electron might be able to split atoms

so maybe a the singularity of a black hole is so "sharp" that it pierces spacetime.

and then something about wormholes and other universes

happy?

>>4738583
I do not literally think it's a portal I merely think it's an interesting idea to entertaining, pouring of the possibilities it would open. and math to me is nothing but a language created by man to define values. I much rather prefer to work on an actual physical understanding. And please don't say the math behind it is the physical understanding, it's not, and if you think it is then you do not understand what I am trying to accomplish.

OP in order to understand our current knowledge of Black Holes you gotta learn your Physics and Calculus. There's no other way around it. Im not saying we know everything about them. Hell maybe we are incorrect in our observations but you gotta learn what we know so any different idea you might had might explain why our current knowledge is wrong.

>>4738598
But what are you saying are marely conjectures. There's no real answers as to what lies behind the event horizon. We suspect its the singularity but right now Black Holes are in the frontier of astrophysics.

>>4738585
oh... well in these two posts it seems like you're making the statement that infinite density = infinite mass

>>4738496
>>4738438

Just making sure you know that black holes have a measurable mass, but the singularity has an immeasurable density

>>4738594
if you or somebody you know, knows the reality of what I am pondering, please let me know. That is if you have even figured out what I am pondering, because im not even sure what it is. I yada yada it because I expressly said that is what i would like to avoid as it does nothing for me, I am not interested in what a black hole is as a physical entity.

And also I am sorry, I didn't realize all of science can be found in a textbook titled "reality"

>>4738438
density=mass/volume

If mass is much, MUCH higher than the volume of the object then its density will be near infinity.

>>4738602

all logical evidence supports the idea that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole

just like all logical evidence supports the idea that there is a spinning molten metal (outer) core (surrounding the solid metal inner core) at the center of earth

>>4738606
>I am not interested in what a black hole is as a physical entity.

Then what are you interested in? The physical universe is all there is. This universe is a materialistic one. Everything in the universe can be reduced to its physical properties.

>>4738598
>happy?

Yes, very, actually. interestingly enough I used to toy with the idea of a knife with an infinitely fine edge and what it would mean mechanically down to the atom and what this could possibly propose in regards to our makings, I was probably about 8 or 9 at the time and hadn't thought about it since.

>>4738601
If you would like to try and explain it to me please feel free.

>>4738613
Indeed, I agree but because we are limited by our observation tools it might be that we are wrong. But I still bet we are right about the singularity.

>>4738619
did this by any chance occur to you after watching that episode of Batman Beyond with the girl who had a sword sharpened to have an edge one molecule wide?

>>4738608
>near infinity
>shiggidy diggity

>>4738619
The thing is that if you want to really know where did we draw our conclusions you gotta learn Maths and Physics. And by learning I dont mean me doing some proof that you wont understand. Im not belittling you or anything but if you want to draw your own INFORMED conclusions you gotta get your hands dirty. Black Holes are the frontier of science. Right now there is unresolved questions in physics concerning Black Holes. This are question that not even geniuses that have work with Black Holes for years have been able to successfully prove.

So you could read about the conclusions modern science give us with an open mind of course or try to study black holes yourself and see if you can solve the problems we have right now.

HEY GUYS TELL ME ABOUT THIS THING THAT SCIENTISTS THINK EXISTS BASED OFF MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS BUT LEAVE OUT ALL THAT SILLY MATH AND SCIENCE IN YOUR EXPLANATION AND JUST FUCKING WING IT. IT'S IMAGINATION TIME!!! IMAGINAAAAAAATION

I'LL GO FIRST, WHAT IF, LIKE, INSIDE THE BLACK HOLE THERE IS ANOTHER UNIVERSE OR SOME SHIT? WILD, HUH? THOUGHTS?

>>4738626
The singularity has infinite density but the density of the entire black hole is near infinity. Its not exactly infinity but its close enough.

>>4738630
basically

>>4738608
it sure does seem to me that logically, infinity and near infinity would be separated by an (____) amount. And that seems to me like an awfully important distinction.
>>4738616
I am interested in what you all might have to say about what nobody yet readily understands. Most people are just not used to or are unable to think about these things.

>>4738634
Well thats not science OP. You might as well go to >>>/x/ because thats not how we roll.

>>4738632
The problem with that is that an infinite density would imply a point in space containing all the mass of the black hole, a singularity. This is mathematically retarded however, so it's more likely that the density has a huge but finite value that gives the core a mass distribution spread out over a tiny volume that has some interesting quantum effects.

>>4738627
no, it came about from a conversation i had with my father discussing what the vast expanse of infinity means for this small blue planet that we live on.
>>4738628
just drop what the genius's are working to prove, different topic really it is, I am pondering thoughts pertaining to subjects that only philosophy has even begun to touch, science is looking for the what, I am looking for the why... its hard for me to explain what i am looking for here but i can say that despite the chaos is it flowing in rather nicely.
>>4738634
not me.

>>4738651
>pondering about the why
There is no why. Things happen because. This might sound crazy but thats how it is. We are concerned with the how or the what. The why has no use for science.

Again there is no why, things happen because thats the way it is.

>>4738657
But don't you see what I am saying? that's wrong. in fact is flat out retarded. To think something as obtuse as "it happens just because" just shows that you have never even contemplated the why. I have contemplated that very question for a very long time and I will stand here blatantly shouting at you telling you that that is retarded, now, do you know "why" I feel comfortable doing that?

>>4738661
But thats not the job of science. The universe is governed by a set of laws that where generated since the beginning of our universe. Pondering on the why is a useless endeavor that has not answer. Science roll is to discover the laws that governed our universe.

>>4738388
>However beyond this mode of thinking the use of the term infinite is null just as in practicality 100 percent is null for most applications. Within the quantum understanding of the cosmos everything can be assigned a finite value, "infinitely dense" is not possible except as defined by traditional science.
Incorrect. The laws of physics as we understand them do say that we cannot distinguish between quantized space and "mathematically dense" space. This is not equivalent to saying space is quantized. This gives no falsifiable prediction that could be tested, and thus it is meaningless rubbish drivel.

Having said that, no one is going to be able to do tests on a singularity and escape a black hole. And even if there isn't an actual singularity or an event horizon, the supermassive black holes in the center of every galaxy are damned close enough to "naive" event horizon black holes that I'm not sure it matters... barring more evidence or better theories, of course.

What's on the other side of a black hole? What side? It's a possible-point mass or a stupidly dense non-zero radius spherical mass. (Ellipsoid for one with an angular momentum.) Usually sides refer to 2d surfaces in a 3d space, such as a (hollow) sphere. Asking what's on the other side of a black hole is just as meaningless as asking what's on the other side of Earth. Clarify your terms please. Which side? What do you mean by "side"?

>>4738661
Let me continue. I feel comfortable doing that because I have learned that while there is a scientific answer for everything, not everything yet has a scientific answer, and that the only way to get there is to skip steps and ask why. This stems not from some outlandish intelligence or elaborate schooling, but moreso from a core understanding of what science is. Perhaps you should pick up a history book and do some reading.

>>4738671
Science does not have all the answers but that does not mean that we should partake in delusions and illogical arguments.

>>4738669
>by a set of laws that where generated since the beginning of our universe

WRONG, these are simply laws that we have created to define what we have observed, the textbooks are being written every day.

>>4738657
>>4738671
Relevant video. Please watch it OP, and learn its lesson.

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

tl;dr
Why does something happen? I can explain why something happens in terms of a model with which you're more familiar, or perhaps you're more willing to accept a model with a "simpler description" that can explain a lot more things. Simple utility. This is was is meant by Occam's Razor. However, next you would be asking me why the model is true. Ex: Why do things fall down? Because gravity - things with mass are attracted according to an inverse square law. But why are things with mass attracted according to an inverse square law? (This is the key part:) I cannot answer that question in terms of something with which you're more familiar, because I do not understand it in terms of something with which you're more familiar.

>>4738677
When I say law Im not saying the laws we have created but the true laws of this universe. Our laws are approximations of the real laws that bounds the universe.

>>4738680
yes, and it is incredibly important to understand that the probability of our approximations beyond even close to the full picture are so absolutely minuscule that some people prefer not to operate under them, but over them.

If I may quote Albert Einstein
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

>>4738682
frankly, im just going to be blunt here, you are the thickest of them yet. After watching that video and attempting to figure how it pertains to this discussion, I grew rather insulted.

>>4738695
But Feyman same argument applies here. The questions you have are good but it cant be explained in layman terms.

>>4738695
Perhaps, then it is my mistake.

I don't know why you mean necessarily by "looking for why?".

"Why" questions are ambiguous. Sometimes the answer sought is a an explanation in terms of a "more basic" model. Sometimes the answer is sought in terms of the desires and decisions of agents. This includes querying the purpose of intelligent designers.

If you're asking why the laws of physics are the way they are, it seems you will not get a satisfactory answer. We will not be able to explain it in terms of a "more basic" model, nor will we be able to explain it in terms of an agent or creator, because as far as we can tell the creator, if any, does not actively engage in an observable way in this universe.

>>4738598
I want to give you some credit whomever you are (if you will even see this). Spot on, It seems most everyone else tripped on there shoelaces and fell on their face.

>>4738718
I think I've just been trolled.
Or the OP needs to go back to
>>>/x/
or
>>>/lit/

>>4738704
Please do not bring a god into this already ridiculous discussion.

To OP, the laws of physics are not finely tuned, they behave that way because that's how they work thanks to the geometry of space. If you don't like the way they work, kill yourself. Causality was invalid before the big bang. The universe fluctuated into existence, perhaps in a whirlpool of other universes. The initial parameters, if any at all, are random.

>>4738728
>Claims to know things for which he has no evidence.
Whatever.

>>4738704
As i said previously i do find it a bit hard to explain, i hadn't anticipated having so few understand what i was looking for.

When I look for the "why" in something, I do not intend it as a question similar to the video you posted with Feyman, in which case the why should be easily understood (maybe magnets repelling isnt so easily understood by some), but it can atleast be easily defined by science.

Do this for me, just jump forward, I mean a big fucking quantum leap forward. think about the quantum singularity and ask yourself why? You're not thinking about some huge start growing to such massive proportions that it collapses in on itself and viola. You are thinking about why it did that, what function it could possibly serve to the cosmos if any, what it's possible use could be in regards to space and time. is it anything? or is it nothing? or is there a concrete reason for it being there? these are not thoughts one can take lightly, i would even venture to say they are thoughts that most humans will never contemplate, so then you wonder, why have the very sub atomic particles that make up me arranged in such a way to contemplate these questions regarding an entity made of the very same particles.

Hopefully that sheds some light on it.

yes?
why?

>>4738738
>quantum singularity
I think that /x/ would be a much better fit for you.

There's also this guy called Deepak Chopra. You may want to look into seeing some of his talks. He's a fraud and a swindler ... I mean a well respected gentleman with similar theories as to your own.

>>4738738

You're thinking is backwards. The things aren't happening "for" anything, they are happening because of previous events.

>>4738743
This is how I know that you do not understand. I have no theories, I have not proposed any theory anywhere in this thread. to jump from speculation to theory so quickly would be asinine.

>>4738752
The troll game is up. Either you're a very bad troll, or an idiot. Using "quantum singularity" to refer to the so-called technological "singularity" gave it away. You're just using buzzwords, and I question whether you have any grasp of their actual meaning.

Now begone, and let us discuss actual science.

My patience for your pseudo-intellectualism is waning. I think it has for others as well.

Can somebody please correct me if I am wrong?

Black holes are rarely formed from very large dying stars. One the star goes through a supernova, what results is a mass that is extremely dense and compact to the extent where that mass is absolutely enormous. Because the mass is so big, the gravitational effect of black holes is so strong that it can even pull in photons of light.

Now my questions are:

In other words, if you had a black hole and a million planets, because the black hole has the most mass, wouldn't all the other planets be more inclined to rotate around the black hole?

Is that why black holes are expected to be at the centers of galaxies?

And if a black hole keeps growing and growing, doesn't the universe just eventually implode in on itself? Or is the universe just too big for that to happen?

>>4738738
>what its use could be in regards to space and time
There's the problem with your why question: it implies that things have to have a reason behind them. Two planets don't circle around each other to fulfill some sort of destiny, they do because they obey the laws of gr.

Am I the only one who can't stand looking at pics of black holes?

Biggest NOPE feeling.

>>4738751
that is within out current understanding of it. this limited to the scope of a black hole would be ridiculous.

but perhaps there is a larger goal to all of this. I am fairly confident that in the coming years we will all see theoretical quantum physics driving us ever closer to this idea.

>>4738769
>this limited to the scope of a black hole would be ridiculous.

why

>but perhaps there is a larger goal to all of this. I am fairly confident that in the coming years we will all see theoretical quantum physics driving us ever closer to this idea.

why, how

>>4738736
>brings up God instead of the widely accepted scientific interpretation of inflation and no finely tuned parameters
Whatever.

>>4738766
>Black holes are rarely formed from very large dying stars. One the star goes through a supernova, what results is a mass that is extremely dense
Yes.

>and compact to the extent where that mass is absolutely enormous.
No. The black hole has just as much mass (less actually) than the star which just exploded. Mass doesn't come out of its ass. It's a common misconception.

>Because the mass is so big, the gravitational effect of black holes is so strong that it can even pull in photons of light.
Again false. It's not because it's so massive. It's because it's so dense. Hypothetically speaking, if magic happened and our sun was replaced with a black hole of the same mass, the Earth's orbit would remain unchanged. We would still see stars, etc. etc. The difference between a regular star and a black hole is that you can get a lot closer to the black hole before "hitting" something than a star. You'll eventually reach the surface of the star, and at that point the gravity isn't strong enough to bend light. And moreover, because of the shell theorem,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
going under the surface of star actually reduces the apparent strength of the gravity. Because the effective radius of a black hole is so small, you can get much closer to the center and thus experience a much higher gravity.

>>4738777
I did not claim god exists. I merely tried as best I can to try to ascertain why he was trying to ask with his "why" question.

Teenage angster atheists. So annoying.

Inflation is pretty cool. It also happened /after/ the big bang, and we have a lot of evidence for it, and thus it's unrelated to the point which you tried to bring it to bear.

>>4738766

This post. Lol.

Black holes are ALWAYS formed from stars above a certain solar mass.

Black hole's do not pull photons. Gravity does not pull photons.

Black hole's do not grow forever.

And on the topic of OP, you should go back to /x/ for your pop-sci answers that your expecting.

>>4738778
Thank you for your answer. I have a few more questions if you don't mind.

So the black hole's gravitational pull is only extremely strong because it is so remarkably dense and because it neglects inefficiencies like the shell theorem, for example?

And are black holes growing? Regardless of the fact that they maintain the same mass after a supernova, doesn't the fact that their higher gravitational pull mean that they are pulling in more mass? Let's say that the sun was replaced with the black hole. Even though for a very long time earth's orbit wouldn't change, wouldn't there eventually be a change or is the time that it takes a black hole to grow so extremely long that it is negligible?

>>4738776
>this limited to the scope of a black hole would be ridiculous.

>why

because the mechanics of the black hole are somewhat understood. there is no use in saying "well maybe the black is like... IS THE COSMOS DOING STUF". Black holes are within the cosmos, therefor the scale is much more grandiose.

>but perhaps there is a larger goal to all of this. I am fairly confident that in the coming years we will all see theoretical quantum physics driving us ever closer to this idea.

>why, how

Look into this one for yourself, should not be hard to find and very well may open a whole new topic of interest for you.

>>4738778
>>4738796
"Rarely formed by exploding stars"
Oh my bad. I misread that. Good catch. Technically, there might be primordial black holes. That appears to be a very plausible answer for galaxy formation if I recall my modern cosmology correctly. Still, it's primordial black holes and supernova black holes. I don't recall other plausible formation mechanisms offhand. (Apart from possible microscopic black holes which apparently don't last very long and/or are never formed on Earth.)

>>4738801

Yes they do grow, however, only the event horizon grows, not the actualy singularity.

Given the right conditions a 1000 solar mass black hole can grow to millions/billions the size of the sun in a fraction of the lifetime of the universe.

Not very fast.

>>4738758
actually this was a goof on my part do to my limited knowledge of the topic, i was reffering to the singularity that is the center of the black hole.

Part 1 of 2

>>4738801
>So the black hole's gravitational pull is only extremely strong
It's no stronger than a star of the same mass.

>because it is so remarkably dense
That has a lot to do with it, yes.

>and because it neglects inefficiencies like the shell theorem, for example?
"Inefficiency" is the wrong word. The closer two objects are, the stronger the gravitational pull between them. If you put two balls touching each other, they have a certain gravitational attraction force. If you move them apart, the force is less. If you took the balls and squished them so that they had a smaller radius and made them touch, the gravitational force would be even bigger than before - because the mass is closer overall.

So, take two stars. As you bring them closer, the gravitational pull between them increases. Let's invoke some magic for explanation purposes and suppose that stars are solid rigid objects. Just as with the balls, moving them apart decreases the gravitational attraction, and if you "squished them" to decrease their radii, you could bring them even closer together, which would result in an even higher gravitational attraction.

Of course, stars are not rigid objects, and you can't just squish them on a whim.

At moderate and longer distances, a black hole has the same gravitational profile as a star of the same size. The same. It's not magic. At that moderate distance, both stars and black holes slightly deflect photons, but not enough to always pull them in.

So this is what a troll thread full of virgins looks like.

Part 2 of 2

>>4738827
Gravity gets stronger the closer you are to the mass. With a star, the mass is spread out over an area, so the point with the strongest gravity is right on the surface of the star. With a black hole, the "surface" i s much closer to the center, and by the rules of gravity say that at that point much closer to the center, the force of gravity is much stronger. This is not true of a star because when you get closer to the center of a star, there is starstuff on both sides of you, which results in /less/ gravitational pull than at its surface. Again, shell theorem.

>>4738801
bitches dont know bout my Hawking radiation

>>4738805

Primordial black holes? These would surely form from concentrated gas in a dense galactic nucleus, forming a super massive star that would degrade quickly into a super massive black hole.

Which answers the question, why are super massive black holes in the center of galaxies?

Because that is where the super massive stars would first form from the highly concentrated gas.

>Inflation is pretty cool. It also happened /after/ the big bang, and we have a lot of evidence for it, and thus it's unrelated to the point which you tried to bring it to bear.
You are a horrible troll. You are either handicapped mentally, or this is supposed to be ironic. Please, explain the existence of the universe and big bang cosmology without your petty philosophical "You CAN'T KNOW NUTHING xDD Checkmate, athiests!". Please explain to me the formalism in QFT which states false vacua/negative vacuum pressure is not possible or how the stress-energy tensor does not account for this pressure, as confirmed EXPERIMENTALLY.

Now, rationalize to me how a creator needs involvement in any of this when accountable effects with a scientific basis (HUP, no finely tuned parameters, and the false vacuum) can explain it as-is.

You and IQ Skitzophrenic are the WORST tripfags on this board. You do not deserve the name 'Scientist'. Your posts are irrational and resort to philosophical garbage to support your claims, while you know little about the current scientific basis as it stands to date.

>>4738827
>>4738835
Alright, thanks again.

So finally, how does a black hole grow? Does it even always necessarily grow? I would presume that if it did go, it would be because of the matter it manages to pull in that adds to its mass which in turn adds to a greater gravitational pull. And why is there such a social phenomena of fear surrounding (no pun intended) black holes?

>>4738841
There are thoughts that the first black holes, the ones that would become the supermassive black holes in the centers of all galaxies, formed just-before or concurrent with galaxy formation. The subtle differences in density in the early universe gave rise to greater density differences, which gave rise to both supermassive black holes and the galaxies formed around these black holes. Or at least according to one hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
>Finally, primordial black holes may have been produced directly from external pressure in the first instants after the Big Bang.

Sorry I don't have a better source offhand.

>>4738835
>>4738827
There is so much wrong with this explanation formulated in "layman's terms" I can't even begin to comment on it. Please learn some relativity.

>>4738816
And what would happen if a black hole "got very big?" Is it possible for it to do some serious "damage?"

The science blindfolds are strong in this one.

>>4738846
>Please, explain the existence of the universe and big bang cosmology without your petty philosophical "You CAN'T KNOW NUTHING xDD Checkmate, athiests!".
Wow bro. Calm down. I'm a rather militant atheist too. I just admit when I don't have evidence to back up my claims, and I recognize when claims are (currently) unfalsifiable. This doesn't mean god exists. It does mean that you're untestable claims are untestable.

>>4738862
Care to point out anything in particular? I was trying to assuage this person's belief that a black hole is magic and that it doesn't obey basic rules of gravity. At moderate to large distances, its gravity is indistinguishable from a regular star like our sun of the same mass. The difference comes when you get sufficiently close, which is impossible with a star because by the time you got that close you're under the surface of the star.

Of course this is the layman explanation which is couched mostly in terms of basic Newtonian physics. I am not even going to bother with relativity with someone who doesn't even understand the basics of the Newtonian approximation, as that would be entirely counterproductive.

Of course, I give it a 50-50 that I'm talking to the /x/ "quantum singularity" troll right now, so meh.

>>4738851
Black holes grow like any large piece of mass, by attracting matter.

>>4738866
This question still is under the false impression that a black hole has more gravity than a star of similar mass. Yes black holes can grow, but it will only grow by "consuming" mass of other nearby objects. From our perspective, no difference at all.

Of course, if a black hole were to be on a path that leads it through or near the solar system, that might be bad, but no worse than if a star or other large object took a trip through the solar system.

But a black hole can't get this sort of runaway growth that will magically make it super powerful and suck us in from far away. Mass is (largely) conserved, and gravity depends on mass. Black holes don't change this equation at all.

>>4738875
Nope youre not I am still here. Also I still think your just thick. Clearly you are at the very least somewhat intelligent but somehow my topic eluded you (i am starting to blame this on myself, i guess you guys aren't too into the theoretical stuff, you all mostly seem blindfolded by science rather then enlightened by it)

>>4738887
I would like to add to this.

I am actually enjoying reading what you have to say about the physical science of black holes (which I know very little about)

>>4738885
>Mass is (largely) conserved, and gravity depends on mass. Black holes don't change this equation at all.

To be clear to the pedants in the thread, I recognize that this isn't true, but for the purposes of education this is what needs to be said.

We don't need to go into accretion disks and how we theorize that some stupidly high portion of the incoming matter is converted to energy in the process. What was it, 30%+? And IIRC we have no clue what sort of process could even get close to this kind of efficiency of transformation of mass to energy. Black holes are cool stuff.

>>4738885
>But a black hole can't get this sort of runaway growth that will magically make it super powerful and suck us in from far away. Mass is (largely) conserved, and gravity depends on mass.

I didn't understand this last bit. Could you explain it, please?

>>4738905
I believe you are afraid, or at least curious to, the possibility that a black hole that's far away gets so big as to suck in the Earth, right?

It's one of the basic rules of physics that mass and energy (together) are conserved. (Barring quantum stuff.) The gravitational influence of something is directly dependent only on its distance from us and its mass. It is irrelevant whether it is a bunch of stars, dust, a bunch of small black holes, or a large black hole. It doesn't matter if a black hole far away sucks up some stars, because mass is going to be conserved in the process, and thus its gravitational effect on us is unchanged. Black holes grow by absorbing mass, not pulling mass out of its ass. As the mass is unchanged, so is the overall gravity of the system as a whole.

Of course, that's a gross approximation to allay your fears of a black hole randomly growing really fast and sucking in the Earth from far far away. If we want to get into some of the specifics, which don't change the answer to your question, lots of cool things happen with black holes. Again, IIRC, the accretion disc of matter surrounding a black hole converts a stupidly big percentage of the infalling matter into energy, a bigger percentage than any other observed process in the universe today. Again IIRC, modern science has no clue what processes are involved for such an huge percentage conversion of mass into energy. We can't explain it in terms of the physics we understand. -- a disclaimer for the asshats pendants in the thread.

>>4738917
Does this mean we could use a black hole as a possible energy source?

>>4738917
Afraid? I wouldn't say so. Curious? Definitely.

I am beginning to understand what you are saying, thank you. So no matter what the black hole manages to pull in (regardless of other processes like accretion; lets just imagine it pulls in matter and keeps it there), the gravitational "radius" does not grow? So far as we are too far away from the black hole, even if its gravitational pull happened to be getting stronger, it would never effect us because we are too far away. I don't think there is such a thing as a gravitational "radius" but let me just use it for the sake of argument. This "radius" never expands just because it gained more strength. The ability to pull in far away objects does not expand with the strength of the gravitational pull. The matter had to be a required certain distance from the black hole for it to be pulled in, regardless of the gravitational strength.

>>4738945
I don't want to comment on what is basically scifi right now.

>>4738946
The key thing I'm trying to emphasize is that if you have a star and a black hole, and then the black hole "eats" the star, mass was not invented. The mass was the same as before. Thus from our perspective way over here, the system of the star and black hole has the same gravitational effect on us before and after.

wasnt there some obscure astrophysicist that calculated that there must be a massive black hole somewhere in the milyway with a gravitational pull growing so strong that it is shifting out solar systems patterns and very well might eventually be what puts us too close to our own sun for our survival?

>>4738973
> wasnt there some obscure astrophysicist that calculated that there must be a massive black hole somewhere in the milyway with a gravitational pull growing so strong that it is shifting out solar systems patterns and very well might eventually be what puts us too close to our own sun for our survival?
No.

At the center of every galaxy there is a supermassive black hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

However, because the distance from that supermassive black hole to Earth is about the same as the distance from it to the Sun, it has basically no net effect on the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

>>4738970
Okay, I understand. Perhaps I will look to the details of the questions regarding an expanding gravitational strength and gravitational field elsewhere.

Thank you very much for your help. As I have nothing to offer in return, I hope my thanks will do. I also wish you luck in whatever it is you need luck in. If you find luck arbitrary, then let us hope you are wrong. Thank you once again.

>>4738983
>luck arbitrary
Heh. I do, but gratitude is not. Neither is helping people.

>Destiny, chance, fortune, fate - They're all ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures
- Gerrard Capashen

>>4738979
I just thought of it because of what the guy you are talking with is saying. no lie I am pretty sure i read this somewhere, thought you might have heard of it as well...

Oh wow, black holes are neat. Does hawking radiation mean that if we can coax certain virtual particles into existance we can use a black hole to fabricate anything we want to? What if i want a new car, so i create a pair of virtual cars then throw one into a black hole. Now ive got a hawking radiation car?

As I understand it, the intense density of a black hole's core may, theoretically, collapse the structure of matter as we know it. The fact that the entire this side of the black hole is held together by that structure leads me to believe there is a quite literally extraordinary amount of probably unstable energy at the core.

tl;dr: subatomic particle soup in a pressure cooker.

>>4739435
Holly fuknshit. Didn't realize I had a 4hrs cached thread up... sorry for dredging.