/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9331139
>is there an upper limit for how much mass a black hole can have?
1/2 of your mother's mass

No,
but in practice it seems that around 50 bn Sun masses the accretion disk starts producing stars of its own. Their radiation then pushes mass away.

>>9331139
not more than your mother
if your mother falls into a black hole our big bang will reverse and our universe will be a singularity in 13.8 bn years again. please avoid that

Depends on the radius of my cock

>>9331139
No. That's why it reaches a singularity.

>>9331155
what if two black holes with disks collided and pushed some mass into each other?

>>9331173
>singularity.

I think there is a difference between whats inside the black hole and what is outside the black hole. The black hole exists with an event horizon that has a radius because the collapse of the star has expelled much energy but that energy can go nowhere. This explosion of energy pushes back against further collapse. You can only imagine the insane forces be applied at the event horizon, where collapse can go no further yet a gravity strong enough to bend light inward, while the internal explosion is equally just as insane pushing back against this gravity.

So if something fell into the gravity of a black hole, where does it go? Is the internal outward force so great that it cannot enter, squashing and being being scattered across the surface of the black hole? Then how could a black hole grow in size?
Would it be only in the case of colliding black holes that they would have enough specific gravity force at their event horizons to tear each other open, near instantaneously attempting to create equilibrium with each other by combining into a larger black hole?

>>9331218
>I think there is a difference between whats inside the black hole and what is outside the black hole
Your Nobel prize is in the mail
ty Captain Obvious

>>9331139
The total mass of the observable universe around it.

>>9331237
I'm just meaning that, unless you're another black hole, falling towards a black hole will not combine you with the internals of the black hole. You will be scattered on the surface at the event horizon.

>>9331277
According to general relativity, objects cross the event horizon and continue on to the singularity, at least from their own inertial reference frame.

>>9331332
That is not a useful assumption.

>>9331343
It's not an assumption. It's a result of the same math that predicted black holes in the first place.

>>9331356
The schwarzchild radius is what predicts black holes. Singularity defined as a infinitesmal point violates thermodynamics.
If you fudge singularity to instead define X a point on a line where the force of gravity becomes greater than c, then "singularity" would be any value on the line < X, or expressed 3-dimensionally with the schwarzchild radius defining mass and volume, X would be the event horizon. There would be no inward gravitational force at the center of a black hole since beyond the event horizon is an explosion of energy with such magnitude that it prevents any further collapse, or any further shrinkage beyond the schwarzchild radius. If the infalling material towards a black hole is being pulled by a force > c, and the internal explosion within the black hole is being pushed by a force > c, on a line where these two forces meet would be the real singularity, but on a sphere it would be every point on the surface of the sphere.

>>9331422
>Schwartzchild radius predicted black holes

No

>>9331422
More realistically it would look like this. Since the explosion cannot escape and ends up either reflecting off the interior back into itself or maybe something else. In both cases what lies within the black hole and outside the black hole dont seem to actually meet. In the case of a black hole colliding with another, it stands to reason that where their event horizons meet would open a channel between the internal guts of each hole so they can explode into each other, combining into a single black hole.

>>9331438
Please, please stop.
It's great that you have an interest in this, and it seems very genuine.

But you really must look up more about the subject before you explain things like this. There is so little correct about your explanations it leads me to believe you're simply writing what sounds good to you.

It requires more than one-half million years for an X-ray-stimulated electron to work its way from the very center of an average sun up to the solar surface, whence it starts out on its space adventure, maybe to warm an inhabited planet, to be captured by a meteor, to participate in the birth of an atom, to be attracted by a highly charged dark island of space, or to find its space flight terminated by a final plunge into the surface of a sun similar to the one of its origin.

>>9331442
I'm not sorry you're so retarded that you only believe what you read in a text book, as it's not my fault.

>>9331456
Let me then ask where you credit your understanding of all the evidence in your argument.

I assume you derived the idea of black holes, schwartzchild radii, number lines, variables, forces, and gravitation on your own seeing as textbooks are so untrustworthy

>>9331463
What i'm saying is where Book A defines some things and Book B defines other things, because there is no book yet between A and B you presume there is no logical connections to be made between anything in A to anything in B.

that being said, i would love to hear an honest argument against what I claimed rather than ad hominem.

>>9331471
Do any of these books you're reading contain the words "metric"? If not, they're probably popsci.

>>9331483

>>9331471
This is simply untrue.
I agree with two things you've said,
Firstly that there are many things that we simply have not proven yet, and current theories are our best guess
Secondly, that mass is spread across the event horizon - this could be true theoretically in pursuit of the conservation of information, but that is beyond the topic at hand

The main argument against what you've claimed is that among everything predicted by science, Einstein's Relativity, QFT - and especially QED within - are among the most supported by real evidence.
The same field equations that dictate Einstein's spacetime suggest it's possible for exotic spacetime curvature in the presence of high pressure (stress/energy or mass colloquially) which we call a black hole. The singularity inside the black hole is thermodynamically irreverent, because it doesn't actually exist. It is a point of infinite mass-density, infinitely far in the future. Upon falling into a black hole, physics is preserved by saying instead of moving forward in time we are moving forward in distance, allowing the time frames of both the observer and you to be relative (ergo they don't see you fall into the black hole)

Of course this is all conditional on the validity of General Relativity, but this like betting on a coin landing completely on its side after being tossed. Sure, it could be possible, but experimental evidence says otherwise.

>>9331492
If the schwarzchild radius did not exist, a black hole would have no volume, and therefore no event horizon. Upon the star collapsing to the point of becoming a black hole, you suggest it continues to collapse infinitely upon itself, but in doing so the horizon would infinitely collapse as well.

Meanwhile is astrophysics and astronomy, stars ready to become black holes as they are "dying", often have much higher rotational spins and energy output than they ever did prior in their lifetime. It stands that there is a correlation between the collapsing fusion and energy output.

Now we take that one step further where the collapse has generated an event horizon, and instead of infalling forever if not evaporating near instantenously or being strangely pushed into another dimension beyond our understanding of space time, the mass retains value and does not lose mass - at least not in any recordable timeframe if hawking radiation is to be trusted.

We now have 2 examples of information we can use to reliably infer things.
I ) a correlation between compacting collapse instigated by fusion increasing energy output exists in recordable information by nature of dying stars, neutron stars, etc.
II ) because the black hole can exist with knowable mass near-indefinitely, it cannot also continue collapsing infinitely, as there is a correlation between collapse and mass defined as the schwarzchild radius. Infinite collapse would mean either (a) the radius infinitely grows or (b) the radius infinitely shrinks. If (b) were true, nearly nothing would be able to fall into a black hole. It would equate to the radius eventually being a planck length where not even an electron could fall into the black hole, and if not even an electron then not a photon, which would begin challenging if light could not escape a black hole when the event horizon is so small that they wouldn't even interact. (b) is thus likely not true based on implied observations of the milky way's hole.

>>9331532
If (a) were true, black holes would suck up everything and there would be no such thing as a near miss.

III ) So because a black hole maintains mass, amd because there is a correlation between collapse and energy output, when a star becomes a black hole, the specific mass causing the event horizon would prevent any energy produced from escaping, feeding back into itself.

We can debate if theres an explosion going on internally or if it's just some ultra dense heat fluid matter, but it is not debateable that the contents of the black hole are collapsing any further. With a black hole 3 kilometers wide of radius 1.5km, it is not intelligble to assume there is any greater force at 0km.r deadcenter than 1.4km.r

>>9331539
The densitity of the contents may be so great globally as to mean no further collapse can happen and it may not even be hot at all. It could be an area devoid of time and without time, no movement, and thus no positive temperature - so anything falling into a black hole would actually be falling onto the black hole on a surface area - a wholly homogenous structure of compacted material than can compact no further resting at absolute zero, where accumulation of outside material merely layers like an onion or a crust.

>>9331218
>So if something fell into the gravity of a black hole, where does it go?
From the outside perspective, it never reaches the Event Horizon, as time slows down. From the victim's perspective, they follow the waterfall of space time heading towards the singularity, effectively infinitely far in the future. Due to time dilation, near the entire life of the universe will appear to go by in an instant from above as they fall. Also, for other odd reasons, time-like coordinates become space-like, and visa versa, with the singularity representing the arrow of time towards the future, rather than a location.

>Is the internal outward force so great that it cannot enter, squashing and being being scattered across the surface of the black hole? Then how could a black hole grow in size?
There is no internal outward force. The Event Horizon grows in size as it contains more mass.

>Would it be only in the case of colliding black holes that they would have enough specific gravity force at their event horizons to tear each other open, near instantaneously attempting to create equilibrium with each other by combining into a larger black hole?
Two black holes just make a whole lotta ruckus followed by bigger black hole - as we've observed. There is a theory, however, that if you got a ring of black holes arranged properly, you could, at least temporarily, expose a naked singularity, which theoretically, should lead to an extreme gamma and x-ray burst, though no such matching phenomenon has yet been observed.

>>9331532
>but in doing so the horizon would infinitely collapse as well
Why? I feel like you don't know what an event horizon is.

>>9331176
It's a practical limit, not an absolute limit. Another black hole, or even a star with sufficient relative velocity, could still enter the black hole and cause it to grow yet more. It's only that most things attempting to enter the black hole are going to get "quasared off".

I suppose the only hard limit would be the mass within the observable universe from the Event Horizon's perspective. There's some question as to whether you could call it a black hole at that point, however. Similarly, if space is compact and uniform, you wouldn't have enough discontinuity for the black hole to exist.

>>9331560
>There's some question as to whether you could call it a black hole at that point
You mean if a black hole hypothetically sucked up every piece of matter?
If the density of a black hole decreases in density as it grows in size, and you threw everything and the kitchen sink inside, would it stop being a black hole and just basically revert to "normal space."

Jayzus you guys, is it so hard to consider the implications of mass being broken down into sub-sub-atomic pieces as it's sucked into a black hole?

Think about it: at some point matter is stretched to the point that its comprising atoms themselves are stretched, pulled apart as the furthest-inward pieces accelerate faster than their neighbors.

there can only be some point beyond which even the smallest known pieces of atoms are themselves broken down into their components, and those components also broken down, and so on.

it's a recursive effect, where pieces that continually require less and less space to remain next to each other are packed further and further together, nearing the center.

now, what could Hawking radiation be? what could happen to smaller-than-imaginable pieces of reality as they're continually accelerated toward some center point, given the concept that they could only circle toward it in a collapsing orbit and never actually reach it?

I, for one, must assume that there is a point beyond which those pieces are not subject to gravity, and their velocity causes them to exit the black hole in a manner that Hawking radiation approximates.

>>9331620
Maybe... There's an interesting theory involving singularity-free black holes that runs along those lines, saying that our own universe is a series of such black holes inside one another, matryoshka doll style. It doesn't really fit with certain key observations, but it's an interesting thought experiment:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe

>>9331636
>Jayzus you guys, is it so hard to consider the implications of mass being broken down into sub-sub-atomic pieces as it's sucked into a black hole?
Actually, unless Cosmic Censorship is a thing, this isn't necessarily the case for very large black holes not taking in a whole lotta matter. You could, theoretically, enter the Event Horizon of such a supermassive black hole unharmed. The gravitational distortions wouldn't become a problem until you got closer to the singularity.

>it's a recursive effect, where pieces that continually require less and less space to remain next to each other are packed further and further together, nearing the center.
Nothing ever actually reaches the singularity, as it is eternally collapsing. The problem with this idea is that the birth of the black hole itself is the result of a mass so dense that there are no forces left that can prevent it from collapsing. It's just going to collapse forever, until it's unwound by Hawking Radiation. Any matter that enters after that event, is just along for that effectively infinite ride.

>now, what could Hawking radiation be?
Hawking radiation introduces a number of problems - but the idea is that virtual particle pairs at the edge of the horizon fail to match up. Nothing actually exits the black hole, it's only that the unmatched particle on the edge has enough momentum to affect other particles that fail to enter the hole and thus release as gamma rays. Its twin enters the black hole, and annihilates with matter inside instead of its pair as it normally would. Ya get into weirdness with either violation of information preservation or causality depending on which variant of the theory you use (either something is effectively erased, or some portion of the mass that created the black hole is "borrowed" in time - which, given the nature of time inside an Event Horizon, is not quite as paradoxical as it sounds, but still ugly.)

>>9331636
>is it so hard to consider the implications of mass being broken down into sub-sub-atomic pieces as it's sucked into a black hole?
Yes, this violates all standard models.

> what could Hawking radiation be?
EM radiation caused by the spontaneous creation of matter and antimatter particles at the event horizon.

>I, for one, must assume that there is a point beyond which those pieces are not subject to gravity, and their velocity causes them to exit the black hole in a manner that Hawking radiation approximates.
By virtue of gravity bending spacetime, this point never exists. Take light for example, it is massless but is still drawn by gravity.

It's a good thought experiment you're having but most of this stuff is already well documented.

>>9331532
If the contents of a black hole were under such pressure that they'd be dead at absolute zer with no movement, that doesn't exactly explain why a black hole would have rotation.

Actually is there any proof blackholes actually rotate? Or is that based solely on the idea that matter around the black hole orbits it?

It's not like you can see the surface of a black hole to actually measure local rotation.
If a black hole actually does rotate, then the contents would have to be explosive in nature providing an evident force to combat further collapse. If it doesnt rotate, it's likely the contents are dead at absolute zero and the compacted material is homogenous through and through. In the nonrotational example, any matter falling into the black hole would be squashed on the surface with such force that it breaks down completely to an elementary particle that becomes indistinguishable from any other completely broken down particle that makes up the black hole, and any sufficiently large mass colliding with the black hole would near instantaneously be spread across the entire surface area of the event horizon to create a perfect sphere, where each completely broken down particle is forced to scatter across the surface until it can find an equilibirum cranny to settle down into rather than collission occuring and making a big lump on the surface.

>>9331665
>is there any proof blackholes actually rotate?
Frame dragging.
Also the star it came from was rotating, and rotational speed increases as the radius decreases to conserve angular momentum.

>>9331665
The singularity *technically* doesn't rotate, as it doesn't have dimension, but the event horizon retains the rotation of the mass that created it (which tends to be rather extreme - having been a neutron star at some point during that collapse). The collision of the two black holes we observed back in August indicate that both had rotation, though there's some debate as to how much that rotation slowed as they got close enough to gravitationally lock one another - the smaller of the two may have nearly stopped spinning.

Observations of frame dragging around Quasars are also good indicators that black holes not only spin, but tend to have rather extreme spins - much like their precursor Neutron Stars.

>If a black hole actually does rotate, then the contents would have to be explosive in nature providing an evident force to combat further collapse. If it doesnt rotate, it's likely the contents are dead at absolute zero and the compacted material is homogenous through and through.
Eh... A black hole isn't really a solid object. It's better described an infinitely deep hole of space - a cascading waterfall of spacetime that nothing can "swim up" from. There's, effectively, an infinite amount of room for mass inside. The Event Horizon only expands from our perspective due to the mass that is inside (and from our perspective, aside from the origin mass, its is all on the outside, until red-shifted to invisibility). None of it is anymore crowded or compact than when it first went in - kinda the opposite, it's stretched out over a never ending cascade of spacetime. (The exception being the singularity itself, which is no longer classical matter.)

>>9331656
>this violates all standard models
It's a given that I've only supposed it's possible that acceleration of parts could cause separation, but why do standard models find this not possible?

>by virtue of gravity bending spacetime, this point never exists.
That's kinda the point of the thought-experiment, here. If something like a Higg's boson might exist, there may well be a "smaller" comprising piece that would not be subject to gravity--at least in the ways we can observe and predict with known pieces. It's a pointlessly speculative thing to imagine, but perhaps useful in considering the behavior of reality concerning black holes.

>most of this stuff is already well documented
There's a great deal more thought and conjecture than overation, IMO. Most is based on conjecture and assumption, so it doesn't seem inappropriate to try new things.

>>9331649
>Cosmic censorship...
Aptly put, but we aren't exactly presented with those situations, observationally.

>Nothing ever actually reaches the singularity, as it is eternally collapsing.
I'd written, "given the concept that they could only ever circle toward it in..." etc., but out of the idea that a center of gravity could be sustained within a vortex necessarily without matter at its center. Frankly, the idea of continual, eternal collapse just doesn't make sense without non-hand-waving provision for internal contents. Yes, spacetime may be warped, but it ought not be entirely isolated into abstraction by that warping.

It is precisely the problems with Hawking radiation that I've been thinking of. Speculatively, a "singularity" might be only a frame-of-reference issue in which matter behaves in ways that have caused prior studies to misrepresent it.

A whirlpool does not send water continually inward, why should its cosmically-furthest counterpart do the same?

>>9331700
pardon, *observation

>>9331680
If so, it suffices to also say that high enough rotation could counteract gravitational collapse, as the rotation attempts to toss away shit like a wet ball being spun and the water being flung off.

So i would still say that the innermost contents of a black are a contained explosive energy that are active and preventing further collapse, but probably not from any ongoing fusion unless there is some further concept that says a system can still fuse if the resulting energy has nowhere to go. A stick of TNT sealed inside an inpenetrable container with enough air to keep the fuse lit, when the TNT ignites, how much ignites? The initial explosion of fire at the end of the fuse would consume the rest of the oxygen in the container, and without oxygen no fire, and no more energy to consume any unignited powder. Yet the contained force of the explosion has to factor in there somewhere. If the container were left to sit an hour and then somehow opened from the outside - as soon as it could attempt equilibrium with the outside pressure, would it then explode outward as if to be expected at the moment of detonation an hour prior? Would that interior pressure generate enough heat to ignite the remaining TNT even after the oxygen had been consumed or is there a definite upper limit to how much reaction can occur in a closed system where because X amount of energy and pressure exists at the limit Y, X=Y, that even though there is fuel for more explosion the fuel will not be consumed? If so, what remains as the contents of a black hole could very well be an actual star with layers of elements and potential fusion, trapped along with all the emitted energy that would inspire more pressure and more fusion up to a point.

Or maybe a better translation would be encapsulating the stick of TNT a mere moment after it has exploded to be analagous to a situation where all possible fusion potential has occurred in the collapsing star just before it has the time to expel.

>>9331715
what if the innermost contents of a black hole was only void?

What if there was a point beyond which things just weren't there anymore?

>>9331700
>A whirlpool does not send water continually inward, why should its cosmically-furthest counterpart do the same?
Cuz it's a whirlpool with no bottom, and it's not made of matter, but space. The space inside the Event Horizon is falling at faster than the speed of causality, which causes the whole "everything beyond this point is no longer part of your reality" effect to begin with.

The sort of thinking you are applying works better with Neutron Stars and Quark Stars, where at least quantum physics still applies. Here there are things preventing a collapse, if barely. Things get more wonky when you have an infinite collapse as with black holes.

...Also, this talk of "violating the Standard Model" - leaving aside the fact that a singularity defies all analysis (which is why Einstein proposed there must be some hereto unknown mechanism preventing such collapses, until we started observing Event Horizons) - the Standard Model doesn't even work with regular gravity or general relativity, nevermind a black hole.

>>9331715
>If so, it suffices to also say that high enough rotation could counteract gravitational collapse
Some Neutron Stars rotate at close to the speed of light. This doesn't stop them from collapsing. Centrifugal force isn't what ya think it is.

>>9331722
>a whirlpool with no bottom... ...space.
This doesn't bother me, though the idea is outside any other observable form of matter. I'm somehow happier thinking of matter as destructing into a non-matter-esque particulate which can escape than consider that matter could be forever trapped.

I'd rather think singularities mis-named, as though the thinking of isolated loners had characterised it.

>>9331727
Near c is not the same effect as >=c which defines the event horizon.

It's silly but shit like this might be real reason for concepts like 0.999... ≠ 1, unless the near c value is determinable.

The idea of all this is for providing reason for the event horizon to exist with a definite radius rather than collapsing any further, so there must be some counteracting outward force within the black hole doing this.

>>9331745
Relativity is pretty much the most thoroughly tested theory around - and you can test it yourself, anytime you want - just whip out your cell phone and see if it knows where you are.

Millions of scientists have been trying to kill singularities for near a century now - and that includes Einstein. They are ugly, because they represent a point that is literally barred from understanding, that you can't even say anything mathematically about, aside from "yup, that's a singularity". They are, however, the only force in the universe that could create the sort of gravitational warping we see, despite all the thousands and thousands tried and proposed alternatives that all failed both observationally and mathematically.

There's going to be a lot of things in physics you "don't like", but as you research them, you'll find more and more that they are true (indeed, sadly, if you don't like something in physics, that's a good clue it's going to be true.) You aren't going to get very far in your understanding of the universe if you ignore all the reasons why something you don't like may indeed be true, simply out of an obstinate personal preference.

>>9331752
>all this is for providing reason for the event horizon to exist with a definite radius rather than collapsing any further
Event horizons don't collapse - they are the collapse. They aren't solid objects made up of things - they are holes.

>>9331757
well. put.

still, there may be another way.

as a grazing hominid respecting another, goodnight to you.

>>9331759
Nah. You defy logical thinking with that assumption. Maybe watched too much sci fi.

You cannot discover without bias, as without comprehension for what is normal, you cannot recognize the abnormal. If you take scientific knowings and understandings of how various physical laws work and interact with one another, you can make assumptions about black holes that fit into those understandings without violating various laws of nature, which the idea of evercollapsing infinite density actually ends up violating a lot of understandings.

I keep seeing this as a common underpinning of arguments on /sci/ desu : a division of understandings and fields where focusing inward and self reference becomes the behaviour for explaining more complex or abstract concepts, which of course natural fail when cross referenced with different fields of understanding almost as if to say science is not a thing at all, but that there are instead numerous science fields which try their damndest to be proven right be self reference rather than cross reference.

>>9331784
>You cannot discover without bias, as without comprehension for what is normal, you cannot recognize the abnormal.
This is oddly exactly what I'm saying.

We get a lot of guys on here who balk at some element of fundamental physics or other, who think they have that "one alternative answer" that will make it "right" to them, and thus set make comfy their vision of the universe that the current theories so threaten.

I mean, nevermind all the anti-intellectual trolls we get swamped with, trying to say every bit of science is wrong for <#reasons>, just start a thread on Block Universe, and watch the abject rage that will result even from the main stream science folks who probably learned this stuff in high school, and just filtered it out when they heard about QM.

The more unintuitive or disturbing a fundamental scientific underpinning in the mainstream is, the more people have attempted to topple it. If you see something truly bizarre, thousands of better men than you have tried to disprove it, thousands of times. So, before you attack it with no knowledge whatsoever, please, learn why it is first, and further, way so many other things rely on it being so. Then, when you have a broad understanding of the interrelations and why you can't pluck out "this one thing you find disturbing", you can start looking for reasons to take it down.

Contradiction is not argument and belligerence is not having an open mind. It's self-enforced ignorance at best, solipsism at worst. Learn the difference.

I mean, unless you just wanna troll - then as you were.

>>9331422
The Schwarzchild result was one solution (among many) of Einstein's general relativity field equation, you stupid, pathetic, ignorant fuckhead.

>>9331252
So, infinite mass?

>>9331686
From the fact that the event horizon is just space it can't rotate and just what is outside that rotate
To possible having momentum in a black hole is the singularity that should rotate

I dont get it where the collapse things came from
Where should a black hole collapse in itself?

>>9331883
You didn t know but the newton result is a result of einstein work so einstein discovered gravity

>>9332707
Space rotates just fine - just needs mass to perturb it enough to do so, which the Event Horizon contains, in spades.

A singularity can't *technically* rotate for the simple reason that it has no surface. It's a single point with no dimensions of its own that defines the spacetime (or in this case, timespace) around it.

>>9332716
It becomes less where, and more when, but I maybe over complicating things with that factoid.

Stars prevent collapsing against their own weight by fusion reactions, but once the hydrogen runs out, and the star starts fusing iron, it can fuse no more. Thus, the outward force of the fusion is no longer sufficient to prevent gravitational collapse (insert mom joke here). Core collapses, star goes boom.

If it's lucky, the collapse will be stopped by neutron degeneracy pressure (and if really lucky, possibly by quark degeneracy). If the star is still too massive, they'll either skip this step entirely, or slow for awhile in this state before collapsing. At that point (about 3 solar masses pact down to about the size of the moon), there is no mechanism that can prevent the collapse, or even slow it. It happens all at once, and at faster than the speed of light (cuz while matter can't do that - space can).

At this point, from an external view, a singularity and related Event Horizon form simultaneously. Inside, space and time flip, with the singularity no longer representing a point in space, but a point in time, effectively, infinitely far in the future of this closed universe, with the last light of the star just behind. (Hence the more when that where comment.)

From the outside, the Event Horizon, for all intents and purposes, replaces the star, having no more gravitational pull than the mass that created it. Only, as more and more matter and energy falls in, it contains more mass, and thus expands. As others have stated repeatedly, from the outside perspective, due to time dilation, that mass stops at the Event Horizon, slowly red-shifting into invisibility. From the perspective of the matter or energy so caught, it does indeed cross that horizon, and begins an infinitely long journey towards that infinitely collapsing singularity infinitely far in what is now its future.

>>9332891
Might be worth noting that, since space is collapsing towards the singularity at faster than the speed of light, objects inside the Event Horizon do not necessarily "spiral". They should retain the angular velocity they had going in due to the spin of the black hole (which is generally considerable, as that collapse involves a huge increase in rotation, whether the original star skipped the Neutron Star stage or not), but in some sense, space is so stretched here, it might as well be a straight line towards the singularity.

If you took a spaceship into a very large and calm black hole, and cosmic censorship isn't a thing, you could, in theory, control your direction within the black hole. Much like you can never travel to the past in the regular universe, you can never travel back towards the event horizon in this one, and any movement you do make will drive you faster forward in "time" towards the singularity. As you traveled in this fashion, however, the light intersecting with you would be coming from different periods, so it might look as though you're traveling through time as you move through space. ...and if you look back towards the event horizon, as you enter, there's the disturbing realization that you just watched your whole universe die of heat death - assuming you didn't blink.

Mind, once inside an Event Horizon, anything described gets very dicey, theory-wise. This is just an amalgamation of possibilities based on how it "should", more or less, work. There's no way to test it, as even if we had access to one, Event Horizons use the same slogan as Las Vegas.

Shit's weird - that's why so many folks, including the folks that discovered the math that predicted them, kept trying to debunk these things. As of yet, however, no other valid explanation for those massive Event Horizons we see.

>>9332679
The mass of the observable universe isn't infinite. For us it's about 3e+55g (including dark matter), plus or minus whatever new factor that comes along to fuck that up, but not infinite. Might be more or less for another black hole somewhere, but *probably* not that much different, particularly if its observable universe overlaps with ours.

>>9331686

This might be a retarded question, but you think, as its falling down that hole, matter could form a star with planets inside the black hole?

>>9331155
Source?

>>9333041
Theres an idea that Singularities spawn universes inside themselves, that may have black holes of their own that form still more sub-universes.
But I think the official stance on what happens inside a singularity is that all bets are off.

>>9333041
It's a neat thought, and I suppose there's some variants mentioned in this thread that would allow that sorta thing, even if observations kinda kill them (>>9331638). In the end, however, space is just too stretched out too quickly. Pretty soon your feet are moving towards the black hole faster than the speed of light relative to your head, thus no electric signals can travel between them - they effectively don't exist to one another. Similarly, the extreme shape of space quickly makes it impossible for matter to gather together, or even hold together atomically. Everything is spaghetti, as they say.

Though - in the case of a 50 billion solar mass black hole (not that we've ever seen anything like that - think we top off at 37b), assuming Cosmic Censorship doesn't shred you as soon as you cross the horizon, and you don't get quasared off, maybe something the size of a small star could keep shining for awhile before shit got too steep. Dun think you'd have 'time' to form a new one though.

>>9333136
>>9333151

Well I mean if you think about it, if there's an infinite well of space, there's a chance there's a few Boltzmann brains spawned in there if that theory is correct.

>>9333101
Not him, but:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28647-black-holes-have-a-size-limit-of-50-billion-suns/

It isn't a "hard" limit though, just a naturally practical one. Basically the resulting quasar is just too active for anything to normally get in, and what does isn't going to grow it much more. However, if it hits a similar beast, all bets are off.

>>9333162
Heh, I suppose... Though maybe not beyond a certain 'depth'. Even a Boltzmann brain has to have a certain volume and connectivity to have that moment of false consciousness.

>>9331139
Yes. But it's 'way up there.https://phys.org/news/2008-09-astronomers-upper-mass-limit-black.html

The supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies can, theoretically, mass as much as 50 billions Suns. Link explains why there's a cut-off.

>>9333275
>One possible explanation put forth by Natarajan is that the black holes eventually reach the point when they radiate so much energy as they consume their surroundings that they end up interfering with the very gas supply that feeds them, which may interrupt nearby star formation
That wouldn't be a problem if you kept slamming black holes into each other.

>>9331456
>"I'm not sorry you're so retarded that you only believe what you read in a text book, as it's not my fault."
>emoji
brainlet detected

black holes expell hawkings radiation

>>9331139
No, because black holes don't exist.

>>9331636
i like it

>>9331700
>>9331745
for what it's worth, i'm with you anon

>>9333151
what are the current theories linking black holes, dark matter and dark energy, kind anon?

>>9331456

You seem like a feg. But i agree, everyone needs to step back and stop only believing a textbook.

>>9335850
None that I know of... Other than dark matter isn't black holes, and I guess Hawking radiation and dark energy are loosely related, being different manifestations of vacuum energy. Well, and quasar energy is probably more than it should be, due black holes forcing to dark matter to annihilate.

Dark matter does share a similarity in its scientific history, I suppose. Non-baryonic matter (matter that only bonds with the weak and gravitational forces) was something that was theorized to exist well before these non-uniform gravitational eddies were observed helping to form the odd galactic sinu we see throughout the universe. It seems it maybe the best explanation for this dark matter effect. In the same way, black holes were a mathematical possibility that many thought would not be a reality, that turned out not only to be so, but also fundamental to the universe's formation. In both cases, while their effects are readily observable, neither has been directly observed. (Difference being that you can't directly observe a singularity in an event horizon, by definition, while we may one day directly observe dark matter - and while there's currently no other working theory for the event horizons we see, there's more hope for alternative explanations for the dark matter effect.)

Dark Energy is a bit different, as it's really just a matter of how much energy there is in the quantum field's vacuum energy and the zero state. Right now, the math behind that, and our observations, do not match up at all, which is the current "Vacuum Catastrophe" in cosmology (not to be confused with "False Vacuum" which is a possible catastrophe of an entirely different sort). The universe's expansion is accelerating, so we know it's there, but it isn't what the math says it should be, thus this *shrug* name "dark energy".

>>9331139
For anyone curious about black holes or OP's question, it's probably best to avoid this thread, which is filled with misinformation.

There seems to be an upper limit, and the question is interesting, but the arguments necessary to understand it are technical and quantitative. If you really want to answer this question, your best shot is checking out Hartle or Schutz's General Relativity books, and then reading the relevant parts of the literature. The papers I'm referring to don't require a super deep understanding of GR -- Schutz or Hartle should allow you to understand the gist.

You can get the pdfs/djvus on libgen.

>>9335965
>Hartle or Schutz's General Relativity books
I don't think you'd find any such in there... There is no *mathematical* limit to the size of black holes. The only one I'm aware of is a result of their interaction with matter around them. I mean, you might be able to *infer* that a semi-quasar would repel far more matter than it takes in at a certain size, but such literature isn't going to give you that directly.

Not that I'm discouraging reading such books, just saying, they won't mention any such limitation.

>>9335977
I didn't mean to say those books directly answer the question, you just have to read an introduction to the subject to be able to evaluate whether or not the research published on the topic is correct.

>>9335989
True... Though that particular approach might be akin to learning to read binary in order to to debug Pearl. There might be some more "macro" oriented works that also contain the relevant formulas. Frolov & Zelnikov wrote a good book called "Introduction to Black Hole Physics" in 2011, for instance.

Though, as always, the only true path involves seven years of grad school.

>>9335884
> stop only believing a textbook
...as opposed to, what, your intuition?

Unless you're a billionaire, you're going to have to depend on textbooks for observational data - or at least logs. I suppose interviews with the folks involved also helps, but, if you can't get ahold of them in person, the best interviews are, of course, in textbooks.

There's little observational data involved, in this case, and a good textbook will contain the math. So - if you don't believe it - just do the math yourself.

If you can't do any of that, then books and schooling are indeed your best source of information.

>>9331551
>From the outside perspective, it never reaches the Event Horizon, as time slows down.

If we can't see anything ever go in, how does it form in the first place?

>>9336043
The initial Event Horizon forms from our perspective instantaneously. As for things that go in later, they add to its mass as they hover at the edge of the Event Horizon, creating the expansion effect.

>>9336043
Also: >>9332891

>>9335927
so, the universe's expansion could be accelerating because of vacuum energy produced by black holes?

also
>dark matter isn't black holes
why would that be indubitable?

>>9331422
So our expanding universe is because we're encoded in the 2D surface of an expanding black hole?

>>9336749
No no... Vacuum energy is the energy inherent to spacetime due to the quantum fields. The whole "empty space isn't really empty" thing.

But as a consequence of that same empty space not really being empty thing, virtual particles are constantly manifesting in the quantum fields in pairs, and self-annihilating. At the edge of the an event horizon, every so often, the two get separated - one goes on its merry way, and the other annihilates a bit of the black hole instead. (The smaller the black hole, the more often this happens, so very tiny black holes put off tons of radiation, and don't live as long as big ones, which live practically forever.)

>dark matter isn't black holes
>why would that be indubitable?
Dark matter is merely non baryonic matter. Some might get inside black holes, like any other matter, but that's about it. Unlike an event horizon, dark matter doesn't swallow light - non baryonic matter has no electromagnetic force, so instead, photons pass through it - though they may still have their paths bent by its mass, as it does have gravity.

Dark matter comes into play in the discrepancy in quasar energy outputs (quasars being angry black holes), as when it gets compressed into itself sufficiently, it self annihilates, releasing gamma energy. It has no weak nor electromagnetic ties, so this can only happen under extreme circumstances, such as inside a quasar's accretion disc.

>>9336755
> we're encoded in the 2D surface of an expanding black hole?
Meh, the Fermilab experiment more or less killed the holographic universe hypothesis. I felt it was silly to begin with, as it's really just an excuse to deal with the information paradox caused by some explanations for the internal mechanics of Hawking Radiation.

Every fundamental laws of thermodynamic break down in extreme circumstances, at least locally. So I dunno why folks got so hung up under that idea when there's a black hole involved.

We're expanding due to dark energy - probably.

Meh, good as video as any, if ya got 15 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYSWAlAewc

>>9336805
Dark matter and vacuum energy aren't directly related to black holes - because, as a wise man once said, SCIENTISTS ARE SHIT AT NAMING THINGS.

Even black hole isn't very good - might be more accurately described as a "cosmic drain hole". Dark matter is better described by its technical term - "non baryonic matter", although that gets confusing when you get into baryonic dark matter, which is just regular and dark matter mixed together, so "non-reactive matter" or "non-interfaced matter" might be better still. "clear matter" if you're trying to stick to those 1000 common words.

Vacuum energy might be better thought of as "space energy". It's the energy in the fabric of space itself.

>>9336755
beautiful desu

>>9336827
Are there such things as Dark Black Holes?

>>9336807

I'm convinced any singularity is either another universe entirely or another place or time, nobody can convince me otherwise, It seems to line up with nature and birth/rebirth we see everywhere.

>>9336838
cont

If my meme-tier understanding of matter and dark matter is correct, then a black hole is where they both reach singularity, i.e. interface 1:1

Please cite me in your papers.

>>9336840
a lot of people feel like that

>>9336805
>>9336807
>>9336827
why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be just one thing?
i mean like light is a wave and particle or something

>>9336838
>Dark Black Holes
You mean... A black hole made entirely of dark matter? Cuz they be perfectly black, and I don't think you get any darker than that, outside of Africa and some parts of New Jersey.

I'd be thinking no... Dark matter has mass, but as it compresses it self-annihilates - but mind, this doesn't happen under normal circumstances for a reason. Without a strong or electromagnetic bonding, well... Imagine you're falling to the Earth and you go through it each time, unless you hit a particle at the very center - that's kinda what happens, except there's a bunch of these Earths, so dark matter particles are constantly falling into one another, accelerated by that, missing, and flinging themselves off to other dark matter particles that in turn do the same to them. Dark matter is thus very spread out, chaotic, and in a sense, gaseous, thus these sticky, cloud-like formations of mass we see as a result.

So you'd have to compress it a LOT, and it takes something like the force of a quasar to do that. Problem is, when the particles finally do actually hit each other, they self-annihilate, releasing energy.

So you'd have to find some way to instantly get three solar masses of the stuff into one place, packed together closer than Neutrons in a Neutron star, before they collided and self-annihilated. I can't think of any natural phenomenon that would cause that, but maybe if you're some kinda magi-tier alien tech civ, you can arrange a bunch of black holes together into some sorta funneling device and work it out.

>>9336859
>I can't think of any natural phenomenon that would cause that
what about random collision? like for everything else?

>>9336840
Well, that's a nice religion you have there - but I've had my vision of the universe flipped on its head several times in my life by new information and experiences. I'm quite old, so I'd be prepared to experience the same. (It's also exactly why you should never trust anyone over 30.)

In a sense, under current theories, it is indeed another universe though. The inside of a event horizon is effectively its own universe, doomed never to again to interact with our own... It just isn't a universe like ours. Everything is rapidly stretched towards the future singularity. Depending on the mass of the thing, one could find one's toes moving faster than the speed of light, faster than one's head in a fraction of a second - and when things are moving faster than the speed of light towards one another, they effectively don't exist to one another. They are, in a further sense, their own universes in the same sense our observable universe is. Eventually, this becomes true with every particle of your body, each in its own observable universe.

So yeah, it's another universe - just one where everything is being stretched infinitely in a single direction. Not a place where you're going to meet your anime waifu - though, I suppose, you'll eventually be just about 2D.

>>9336855
>why couldn't dark matter and dark energy be just one thing?
They are actually entirely different, and entirely unrelated things - because again (say it with me this time) SCIENTISTS SUCK AT NAMING THINGS!

They are even more different than regular old matter and light, more different than matter and anti-matter.

They serve entirely different roles - indeed, exact opposite roles. One is wierd matter with a gravitation force that is attracted and attracts, the other is a force of energy inherent in space itself that has relativistic properties that cause the universe to expand due to the resulting anti-gravitational effect.

I mean, you can't get more different than that- and they really shouldn't have names that are in anyway related. The 'dark' comes in, simply because, in both cases, we don't know much about them, nor have we directly observed them. Hopefully, if that changes, someone will make a big deal out of officially changing the names.

>>9336870
what do you think about the strong CP problem, anon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem

>>9336863
As I tried to explain, they can't have random collisions, because they don't bond - they just fly by each other. It takes an external force compressing them with more energy than Strong Force normally applies. Again, a power pretty much exclusive to black holes.

Even if the whole universe collapsed in on itself in a big crunch (something we've ruled out btw), unless it did so at the speed of light, or near to, the stuff would self-annihilate before you got enough together to make a black hole.

>>9336870
>one could find one's toes moving faster than the speed of light, faster than one's head in a fraction of a second - and when things are moving faster than the speed of light towards one another
Jeeze... Correction: one could find one's toes moving at faster than the speed of light, relative to one's head - and when things are moving relatively faster than the speed of light AWAY from one another, they effectively don't exist to one another.

>>9331665
>Actually is there any proof blackholes actually rotate?
from my elementary understanding:
>large thing has angular momentum and angular velocity
>as thing gets smaller the angular velocity goes up
>thing gets infinitely small
>angular velocity goes up infinitely

>>9336878
ok, thanks
but a wave and a particle are also completely different things
as are matter and void
then light is both wave and particle
matter is essentialy full of void
and space becomes time inside a black hole, if i understood >>9331551 right
twin particles are also some kind of voodoo mumbo-jumbo, when you look at them closely desu

>>9336882
Well, since the electromagnetic thing didn't pan out, there has to be some difference between matter and anti-matter to keep anthropic principle, so maybe that's related.

Beyond that *shrug*.

>>9336878
ok, thanks
but a wave and a particle are also completely different things
as are matter and void
then light is both wave and particle
matter is essentialy full of void
and space becomes time inside a black hole, if i understood >>9331551 and >>9332891 right
twin particles are also some kind of voodoo mumbo-jumbo, when you look at them closely desu

>>9336897
shit, i barely make sense
my question is:
how would all these things get hypothetically linked together?
are there cosmological cycles like there is a carbon cycle on earth, or water cycle?
is there a cosmological matter cycle?
a cosmological energy cycle?

>>9336897
I don't think dark energy and dark matter are superposed like particles and waves.

>>9336904
>how would all these things get hypothetically linked together?
Common ancestor, same as everything.

>>9336893
>but a wave and a particle are also completely different things
Well, a wave and particle aren't entirely different things at the quantum level - they are, in fact, the same thing. Shit just doesn't operate with the same intuition the same at that scale. There's, literally, no certainty, only probability.

>as are matter and void
Turns out there is no void. Both nothing and infinity are purely mental constructs. (Though I do like to say "effectively infinite" a lot, don't I?)

>matter is essentialy full of void
Matter maybe full of void, but those little bits of confined massless particles make all the difference. They, for instance, give you time, and without that bonding and confinement, you'd experience time the same way a photon - ie. not at all. (Albeit, you also, presumably, would not be having experiences.)

>and space becomes time inside a black hole
Yes, but space and time are also one in the same. We just twisted and flipped the compass due to crossing the horizon.

>twin particles are also some kind of voodoo mumbo-jumbo, when you look at them closely desu
If you mean entangled particles - while they seem weird at first or at overview, if you look closely, it makes sense - especially combined with the fact that everything is essentially united by these fields. If you look into their inherent limitations, you'll find they don't cause the sort of regular causality violations one would expect. Don't believe everything you read about them or see on youtube, lest it's from a very reputable, and accountable, academic source.

>>9336909
Not sure how I linked the wrong post there - meant for >>9336897.

>>9336904
>how would all these things get hypothetically linked together?
All sourced from the same moment of plank time. Everything is literally connected by spacetime and causality, save for where spacetime is moving away too quickly (eg. event horizons or outside the observable universe), but even then, even inside black holes, it all shares a common source.

>are there cosmological cycles like there is a >carbon cycle on earth, or water cycle?
>is there a cosmological matter cycle?
>a cosmological energy cycle?
Sadly, currently, it appears not - everything is just going to keep expanding forever at a rapidly accelerating pace. Eventually, we won't be able to see the microwave background that gives clues to our origins, or the other trillions of galaxies - save the other 54 that'll eventually merge with us. Then, for a long long time, we will be a lonely single gigantic galaxy, slowly getting darker and darker, until the lights go out.

After that, there maybe some weird twisted network of iron laying about, depending on whether or not protons decay, and long after that is torn apart by further expansion, the last of the black holes will finally evaporate, their released energy pulled so quickly away that it'll never have a chance to interact with itself or any other energy, ever again. Every particle in the universe will be moving away so quickly that neither gravity, electromagnetic, weak, nor strong force, will be able to hold anything together, each particle will effectively be in its own observable universe - and literally RIP.

But...

There is a theory that suggests that beyond this point, the quantum fields will become so uniform and so calm, that you could indeed have quantum vacuum event akin to that which some theorize created the universe.

Granted, due to uncertainty, it'd be an entirely different universe - but it is a cycle the next one's liable to repeat (or maybe it'll just implode on itself until it creates a version that does - who knows).

>>9336909
>Matter maybe full of void
Full of SPACE - I see what I did there...

>>9336923
>Sadly, currently, it appears not - everything is just going to keep expanding forever at a rapidly accelerating pace. Eventually, we won't be able to see the microwave background that gives clues to our origins, or the other trillions of galaxies - save the other 54 that'll eventually merge with us. Then, for a long long time, we will be a lonely single gigantic galaxy, slowly getting darker and darker, until the lights go out.
That's assuming we don't figure a solution for that within a hundred trillion years. Assuming we even get off this rock, of course.

>>9336923
>There is a theory that suggests that beyond this point, the quantum fields will become so uniform and so calm, that you could indeed have quantum vacuum event akin to that which some theorize created the universe.

I really liked Roger Penrose' theory that the only thing that would be maintained in this situation is gravitational waves that still exist in the heat death.

At the moment of heat death, you suddenly lose all defined "distance" and "time" (because of homogeneity) and suddenly you find yourself with all the universe's energy and matter in what can only be defined as "the same place". The leftover gravitational waves are then responsible for the "clumping" disurbances in the cosmic background microwave radiation, and subsequently galaxies and everything.

>>9336938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEq-tTjcc0

>>9336923
>Eventually, we won't be able to see the microwave background that gives clues to our origins, or the other trillions of galaxies - save the other 54 that'll eventually merge with us. Then, for a long long time, we will be a lonely single gigantic galaxy, slowly getting darker and darker, until the lights go out.
i kind of like it
almost comfy
more about that?

>>9336940
Penrose gets a bit batty sometimes, but it's certainly a more positive picture than most of the current mainstream. So kudos for that, though I suspect its all gonna get stretched flat. Gravity only propagates at the speed of light, so, eventually, any plot of space that isn't already bent to hell, isn't gonna experience waves from somewhere else.

>>9336944
Eh... Not much to say, so it's kinda down to science fiction (>>9336941) or pop-sci as to what that'd be like... (Mind, that particular sci-fi was written before we realized the universal expansion was accelerating.)

If you want the pop-sci (with intro by Atheist-Man):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>>9336923
>currently, it appears not - everything is just going to keep expanding forever at a rapidly accelerating pace
i feel like something is missing, still
what about massive black holes at the center of galaxies? do they seem to have a purpose?
(everything has a purpose)
what are the consequences of the gamma burst emitted by black holes? do they do something? like a super space death ray?
(everything has a purpose)
sorry for the pop/sci/

>>9336952
>currently, it appears not - everything is just going to keep expanding forever at a rapidly accelerating pace
>i feel like something is missing, still
We all are...

>(everything has a purpose)
Without a consciousness to decide on it, physics is as physics does. There's a whole lotta stuff going on out there with no apparent purpose - but maybe you can find one. That's your purpose.

>what about massive black holes at the center of galaxies?
They help keep galaxies together, and in some ways, form them.

>what are the consequences of the gamma burst emitted by black holes? do they do something? like a super space death ray?
Yes, yes, exactly that... Well, the gamma burst from a black hole evaporating isn't that bad at a distance (especially given that only very tiny black holes can evaporate in a time scale smaller than the entire existence of the universe)... But the streams of energy that Quasars put out, often have more energy than entire galaxies (sometimes by a factor of billions), and are also are often longer than most galaxies.

If a decent sized quasar started up in the middle of the galaxy, we be hit by its beam though (it'd be aligned with the galaxy). However, the ambient radiation would be enough to cook everything in the galaxy. So, yeah, dead anyways.

However, the sort of gamma ray bursts we usually worry about, since there's no quasars near us, and the center of the galaxy probably doesn't have the mass to make one (save maybe after webm related), are those from exploding stars, and from pulsars. These aren't as impressive, but there's a lot more of them near us, and they can wash our whole solar system in radiation from thousands of light years away.

There's actually a good candidate for that (WR 104 - collapsing with a pole pointed towards us), and Betelgeuse has been observed collapsing into a supernova since the 70's. (It may have already exploded 600 years ago - won't know until tomorrow.)

>>9336965
>If a decent sized quasar started up in the middle of the galaxy, we be hit by its beam though (it'd be aligned with the galaxy)
* we wouldn't be hit (but dead anyways)

Also, to clarify, stars that explode when creating black holes, yes, make big bad GRB's. Stars that collapse into Neutron stars, however, are actually a bigger problem, as they keep right on putting out GRB's for next to forever - and they occasionally flip unpredictably, risking sending their death beam our way.

All of this is among the many, many reasons you don't want to keep all your eggs in one solar basket.

>>9336870

Things being stretched infinitely in a single direction sounds like a good description of time in our universe

>>9336965
why are the galaxies bumping into each other?
they aren't solid objects?

>>9336973
Ehh... I dunno, are your head and feet still in the same observable universe? Have you been stretched into a near infinitely fine line of particles?

When you move, do your head and toes get even further apart more quickly (not that you could tell, I suppose), and do you seem to observe things around you going either further forward or backwards in time, depending on which way you walk? (Actually, last bit is a bad example, that does kinda happen with block universe - but damnit, not exactly.)

Suffice to say, there's a lot of observations that don't mesh.

>>9336965
>They help keep galaxies together, and in some ways, form them.
how is that?
aren't galaxies born from nebulae?

>>9336981
No, but they are massive objects with collective gravitational force.

In the end, this isn't as nasty as it looks, as stars in those galaxies are so spaced out, that we could probably survive that collision without incident. Granted, we'd be doing it around some other star (or stars), as ours only has a billion years left before we're kicked out of the habitable zone, and four after that before it dies and swallows us.

>>9336973
nice

>>9336987
Stars are born from nebula, and attract one another. Big stars (or colliding stars) form black holes. Black holes attract stars and grow. Big black holes attract a whole lotta stars, and bind the galaxies, defining the orbit of the stars within it, with the inflowing dark matter aiding from the other end.

some day, like infinite monkeys hitting keys at random on their keyboards for an infinite amount of time, the whole universe will be explained on /sci/

>>9336992
Before you ask where nebulas come from - stars make nebulas when they explode. As to where the first stars came from - basically, at some point, with all the unbound hydrogen in such a then-small universe, everything was a nebula. (Sometime before, everything was hot plasma, and thus was too busy screaming "get the water niggah!" to care.)

>>9336992
and then black holes evaporate? emit Hawking radiations destroying everything? like everything becomes hydrogen again? or subparticles? what's next?
are new nebulae created today?

>>9336994
Today's challenge: do it in less than 300 posts, or before someone realizes your code finished compiling ages ago.

>>9337001
They explode in omni-directional gamma ray bursts. Though, like I said yonder (>>9336923), for the big ones, that's going to happen long after heat death, and when it does, the universe will be expanding so quickly that each particle of that burst will be unable to interact with anything else, effectively being in its own observable universe.

But with a little black hole, you can use that to power your starships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x32AkL6HPfc
Albeit, you need some sci-fi level gamma reflecting material and a some orbital solar panels the size of New York (not the city, the state), and a ludicrous amount of industry.

>>9337001
>are new nebulae created today?
Yes. Indeed, one of the nice big nebulas you can see was born in the 11th century, and even recorded by studious Chinese, who noted the supernova that birthed it was brighter than the moon for years - and there's a nice neutron star in the middle of it.

And like I said at the end of the doom section (>>9336965) both WR-104 and Betelgeuse are due to make another one. You may even see one born with the naked eye before you die... and it maybe why you die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1054

>>9331139
yes 1xUniverse

>>9336807

>Meh, the Fermilab experiment more or less killed the holographic universe hypothesis.

Wrong.

>The Fermilab physicist Craig Hogan claims that the holographic principle would imply quantum fluctuations in spatial position[19] that would lead to apparent background noise or "holographic noise" measurable at gravitational wave detectors, in particular GEO 600.[20] However these claims have not been widely accepted, or cited, among quantum gravity researchers and appear to be in direct conflict with string theory calculations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Experimental_tests

Holographic principle is certainly alive and well, and a very active area of research in high energy physics.

>>9337148
On the other hand...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/controversial-experiment-sees-no-evidence-universe-hologram
Think the lasers under quantum level observation here were better evidence than the gravity waves countless millions of miles away.

>>9337177

it is the same experiment by Craig Hogan

again, it is wrong because holographic principle predicts no detectable noise either in gravity waves or in lasers or anywhere else

>>9337198
Ah, my bad, reading comprehension - been up awhile...

https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/hogans-holographic-noise-doesnt-exist.html

Interesting, though it doesn't do anything to boost the idea either, just says you can't prove it that way.

Still betting against it. I mean, I'd trouble with information paradoxes in every day circumstances - but not at an event horizon. All kinds of shit breaks around there, so again, no idea why this one thing is really a problem, save that people fundamentally dislike the idea of being deleted (like it removes the 'immortality of the soul' idea or some crap).

>>9336965
how would you link black holes, dark matter, dark energy and string theory?
(or whatever is fashionable right now)

>>9337217
Keep in mind that you just took a blog over the word of a sciencemag.org article, that has the actual study and results behind the 2.5 million dollar experiment attached.

With Wikipedia, ya gotta check those sources.

>>9337224
I should be able to tell you, but I took to ignoring string theory, after it became evident to me that it was a whole lotta math that works really nicely, but could never be observed... And the one time they did manage to make an observation that broke it, they came up with another theory that couldn't be observed to compensate for that observation.

It's an interesting rabbit hole, and maybe something good will come out of it - but, until it becomes science and not pure math, or we have a particle collider the size of the moon, I'm not going into that again. What happens mathematically, does not always turn out to happen in reality - or we'd have worm holes everywhere, among other things.

Granted, this is also why most of everything in this thread regarding "what happens inside an event horizon" should be taken with a grain of salt - though at least there, it's what *should* happen, extending the theory that predicted it and the observation of its existence... Rather than building from the other way around.

>>9337226

>Keep in mind that you just took a blog over the word of a sciencemag.org article that has the actual study and results behind the 2.5 million dollar experiment attached.

It is not just a blog, it is a blog of Lubos Motl, a quite well known quantum gravity expert. In this case the blog is certainly the more authoritative source than some popsci article or even a study by some experimental physicist.

The experiment itself is still nice but it simply does not disprove holography in physics.

>>9337217

Note that holographic principle is a lot wider than "we live on an event horizon of a black hole". I agree that we probably dont. But holographic principle is probably true at least in some way.

>>9337245
>Note that holographic principle is a lot wider than "we live on an event horizon of a black hole".
Yeah, but that's why it started. By extension, it means everything is the result of projected 2D hyper-information. I'll look into a bit deeper when I next get a chance though, so thanks for the heads up.

>>9337217
>like it removes the 'immortality of the soul' idea or some crap
Same reason people fight block universe principle, it gives the illusion of destroying the principle of free will. If we ever get a working testable theory of quantum gravity, however, I suppose there's still hope of killing, or at least mitigating it.

Also, a lot of great discoveries come out ultimately bunk theories, strangely enough.

>>9337242
>ignoring string theory
so, you don't try to make everything work together? you don't look for an underlying mechanism? or principle? or whatever? or do you have an alternative pet theory? can you ever dissociate the infinitely big from the infinitely small? is there a god? lol

>>9337292
I'll wait for an underlying principle that can actually be tested.

Ya know those experiments they did, where they gave a seven teams of tech geeks a Vic-20 CPU, and told them to reverse engineer it, only using the inputs and outputs, without ever being allowed to test it beyond that? They all made perfectly good emulation models of the CPU that could run a whole suite of Vic-20 software, and custom mapped the inside. Guess what? Maps were all wrong and completely unrelated to the actual Vic-20 design, despite the fact that everything held up.

It's kinda like that - all their mechanics are in a black box, and if some frayed bit sticks out and wrecks the whole thing, they expand the black box.

>>9337307
Y-yeah, but hey, they still designed seven new Vic-20 CPUs!

>>9337328
A testable quantum gravity theory will probably make string theory redundant... As would a call to Commodore. :P

>>9337307
well
black holes are a black box
dark matter is a black box
dark energy is a black box
string theory is a black box
what else is?
like usual, we only know that we know nothing
also, what the fuck are you doing on a saturday that you are able to answer to every question i ask? listening for aliens on a radio telescope?

>>9337307
well
black holes are black boxes
dark matter is a black box
dark energy is a black box
string theory is a black box
what else is?
like usual, we only know that we know nothing
also, what the fuck are you doing on a saturday that you are able to answer to every question i ask? listening for aliens on a radio telescope?

>>9337245
>thinks Science is a pop-sci magazine
>thinks quantum gravity is a theory
>thinks a blog is "authoritative"
So, you're what, 15? You obviously don't actually know anything about real science.

>>9337333
>>9337340
>black holes are a black box
No, because relativity is testable. (And more thoroughly tested than just about any theory around.)
>dark matter is a black box
No, because we already had the possibility for non-baryonic matter in the standard particle model, which is also thoroughly tested.
>dark energy is a black box
Ehh... I might be with you there. Though there does have to be some sorta cosmological constant and counter to explain that increasing rate of expansion in a flat universe with this much crap in it.

>string theory is a black box
Problem is it isn't testable in any way shape or form - at least not until we get that aforementioned moon-sized particle collider, at which point, if it blows it out of the water again, they can just expand the black box again.

>also, what the fuck are you doing on a saturday that you are able to answer to every question i ask? listening for aliens on a radio telescope?
Currently compiling maps and falling asleep.

>>9337348
>thinks Science is a pop-sci magazine
>thinks a blog is "authoritative"
Not him but... Looking into it, it's a fairly good blog at least.

If by magazine, you mean the sciencemag.org article, it literally links the actual paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01216

>thinks quantum gravity is a theory
It's a theory in progress - there's lots of competing models.

>>9337349
is there a current alternative to string theory?
what would happen if we found the Higgs boson at CERN?
don't fall asleep!

Black holes don't exist. In before,
>muh LIGO
LIGO's detection was not confirmed by any third party (since there is no other gravitational wave detector capable of it available at the moment), and more importantly, it's not a given that what is detected were actual black hole collision artefacts and not some other massive collision. (If what it detected were gravitational waves at all.)

>>9337348

>thinks Science is a pop-sci magazine

sciencemag is popsci

>thinks quantum gravity is a theory

brainlet semantics detected

quantum gravity is the relevant field of study if you want to determine whether holographic principle leads to an experimentally detectable noise

>thinks a blog is "authoritative"

this one is quite authoritative

>So, you're what, 15? You obviously don't actually know anything about real science.

oh the irony

>>9337364
>is there a current alternative to string theory?
Lots, mostly involving quantum gravity. Similarly, none are in a state of testability, but at least we can figure which are right with discoveries that are closer on the horizon than a particle collider potentially capable of creating universes.

There was a recent interview with one team running an alternative theory they thought they could test today, but were still working the kinks out I saw... I'd look for it, but I think they had the girl talk, and she sounded kinda spacey - and again, one of those people more determined to undo block universe principle than find a truth. Still, sounded interesting.

Lots of GUT's and TOE's out there... Most are bunk, some are promising - lots are more promising than string theory. ...and even some of the bunk ones have lead us to other discoveries over the years.

>>9337376
>There was a recent interview w
Link please. Or more details.

>>9337376

>lots are more promising than string theory

Not true at all, string theory is the most promising one, then there is LQG and a handful of others which are far less promising but have at least some merit.

>>9337364
>if we found the Higgs boson at CERN?
We already have.

>>9337366
*sigh* Flat earthers in every thread, I swear.

You do realize three separate gravitational wave detectors were involved in that (the Virgo detector and the Hanford, Wash detector, in addition to LIGO), and there are literally dozens of them - just those were the best three? ...and you can literally go to observatories to watch event horizons in action?

Does your cell phone know where you are? Okay then. If the science behind that didn't work, black holes wouldn't be a thing. Come back when you figure out why airplane flights are curved and people fly over antarctica.

>>9337376

>block universe

is philosophy and not science, certainly not physics. Why are you repeatedly bringing it up?

>>9337379
Meh, give me a bit to find it - I liked proposal, I did not like the interviewee or her motivation.

>>9337376
>they had the girl talk, and she sounded kinda spacey
sauce

>>9337364
>>9337388
>if we found the Higgs boson at CERN?
>We already have.
Yes. Unfortunately the results opened the door to False Vacuum. Which, basically, means the whole universe could be reduced to a plane of nothing more complex than H2 at the speed of light from one or more points, at any moment and without warning.

Gotta love physics.

>>9337388
well, that's underwelming

>>9337398
wtf does that even mean?
also, comfy thread

>>9337389
I am not a flat earther, sorry to disappoint. Until I see independent observations of such events, I will remain skeptical. When are they launching eLISA anyway?

>>9337394
>>9337379
Man that was buried deep in my history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L4I1ldPqbo

Again, her main complaint is block universe, but it's a GUT, so it fills the role of string theory in the process, as do most quantum gravitational theories.

>>9337405
>Until I see independent observations of such events,
USA, multi-national project in Antarctica, and Europe? Are you waiting for the aliens to chime in? Or is it you just don't trust anything that has any gummint cash behind it?

>>9337418
>all based on Earth, all using fundamentally the same design
Why do you think I mentioned eLISA?

>>9337404
It means if the top quark measures wrong, we're fucked.

It was proposed in another thread as yet an explanation for the Fermi paradox - namely, as soon as the aliens get a big enough particle collider to measure the top quark, they bail on the doomed universe. (Said particle collider, possibly, giving one the potential to make another.)

I'd really hate to link this preschool video version, but the Wikipedia article on False Vacuum doesn't illustrate the point well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFm6DxNVyI
(Mind, I suppose while this video is of course oversimplified, the only major flaw is that we do have some idea of the end result - ie. nothing more complex than h2 roaming about afterwards. ...and that it's far too kewt.)

>>9337423
I guess you don't trust the observations of the Omuamua asteroid because they all come from telescopes using the same fundamental design. (Okay, one of two designs.)

Face it, ya just don't like the idea of the things, and it wouldn't matter how much evidence you were presented with.

>>9331155
good answer... and also checked... :)

>>9337423
...and the radio telescopes that spotted it for those gravitational detectors?

>>9337423
Also, these detectors share data, so they're not actually independent observers.
(And I didn't even get into my distaste for the statistical models they use, aside from all the technical-operational aspects of the observers.)

>>9337434
On the contrary; a universe with exotic stuff like black holes would be a more interesting universe than one without them. I want things to be maximally interesting. But I am also extremely skeptical by nature. (It's why I got into maths. It's a very healthy domain for my skepticism.)

>you don't trust the observations of the Omuamua asteroid
Yes.

>>9337439
???

>>9337448
Dunno what you're doing on a /sci/ board... At least you like math, I guess, even if you deny all its resulting observable discoveries when you can't do them at home.

It is the first time I can remember coming across a luddite who wasn't a flat earther here though... Well, there are those electric universe guys - most of which are just creationists and Christian conspiracy nuts in a thin disguise.

Do you believe satellites exists? I dun wanna fubar this thread while it was going so nicely...

So, what exactly is the argument (since the evidence is nonexistent) that what LIGO observed were 3 (or 4) black hole collisions and not, say, gravastar collisions?

>>9337464
Nice strawman faggot.

>>9337476
Or why not, say, collisions of very massive stars?
Please don't say something like
>it can't be stars because stars that massive would become black holes
That's a circular argument and you know it.

>>9337476
>>9337488
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=observations+of+black+holes

Also, tests of General Relativity, while you're at it.

There's no point in presenting evidence to someone who denies all evidence. Please go troll somewhere else.

>>9337493
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=observations+of+black+holes
You do realise that it is exactly about those supposed observations of black holes that I'm talking about, right?

>>9337476

>So, what exactly is the argument (since the evidence is nonexistent) that what LIGO observed were 3 (or 4) black hole collisions and not, say, gravastar collisions?

>LIGO's observations of gravitational waves from colliding objects have been found either to not be consistent with the gravastar concept,[3][4][5] or to leave the question unanswered.[6][7]

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

>>9337488

it cant be stars because collision of stars massive does not produce such gravitational waves

to get gravitational waves of such frequency and amplitude, huge accelerations of huge amount of matter in a small region are needed, so either black holes or possibly neutron stars

>>9337502
Like, I genuinely hope you're just an enthusiast and not a physicist because because this hurr durr you're skeptical about X = you're a troll shit is pretty embarrassing, even for a physicist.
Note that I never denied that general relativity is not at the minimum, out best available approximation of how gravitation works.

>>9337508
>so either black holes or possibly neutron stars
I'll err on the side of assuming they were neutron star collisions then, since the data on gravastars is inconclusive and they're just as speculative as black holes.

If that makes me a "luddite" or a quack, so be it.

>>9337405
>>>/x/

>>9337412
thanks for the effort, anon
it's appreciated

>>9337530
Once again, I am sorry to disappoint, but I do not entertain any ideas about the "paranormal" nor do I assume any conspiratorial intent behind the people doing the experiment, so I have no business being on /x/. You're credulous enough that I believe you'd make a better fit for that board than me. Just a thought.

>>9337502
Look... Tens of thousands of scientists have been trying to kill black holes since Einstein first came up with inevitability - including Einstein himself. All have failed to find a way around singularities that matches up with observation.

There's hundreds of thousands of these massive objects we've detected, that do not shine, and are far too small to contain the mass they pull with, everywhere. ...and then Hubble (a device which we use the same formula that predicts black holes, just to be able to communicate with - much like your GPS) found all this related gravitic lensing effects, and other such observations followed.

A few years before Hubble, we had our first evidence of gravity waves, when two Neutron Stars collided, and vanished - all in the visible wavelength.

Nothing can sustain a star that large. Nothing else can have that much mass in that small a space. And without them, none of the current gravitational models of the universe work. Without them, galaxies cannot exist.

You don't believe in visual observations of even near Earth objects - so what proof could I possibly give? You wouldn't believe it if I could magically teleport you into one. Albeit, given the shock, I might not blame you at that point.

You're denying all evidence, from millions of experts working for a near century, while saying there is none, and probably doing so on a device that requires relativity calculations to operate. That's not skepticism, that's belligerence and ignorance, learn the difference.

...and that's it, I'm going to bed. I need to stop posting outside of moderated science forums.

>>9337535
No problem - ya can find some of the team's related articles from there - not quite as flakey as she makes it sound. I first heard about them at a Perimeter Institute symposium near here, but they are fairly pay-walled (even though the symposium was free). Only non pay-walled stuff I'm finding off-hand is from plus.maths.org, and they dip into pop-sci a lot.

>>9337565
Look, there is no need for you to repeat observational evidence for the (approximate) validity of general relativity.
>You don't believe in visual observations of even near Earth objects
I forgot to call you out on how deceptive you were when you tried to imply Oumuamua was detected using LIGO. Turns out it was found using telescopes in Hawaii.

>I need to stop posting outside of moderated science forums.
Indeed. Back to the echo chamber.

>>9337448
>>9337476
>>9337559
>>9337599
and then there's this fucking insufferable faggot

>>9337621
Maybe you should fuck off back to physicsforums as well.

>>9337859
maybe you should drink bleach and die?

>>9337905
Definitely not. You on the other hand, should.

>>9338154
nice comeback retard
>>>/bant/

>>9339236
>looks left
>looks right
Is he gone?

>>9339249
I am with you always.

>>9339255
Dammit, I had questions...

>>9339261
No one is stopping you from asking them.

>>9339268
Grr -- afraid it’ll just bring back that asshole.

Fine…

DISCLAIMER: If you don’t believe in black holes, please ignore this damned thread. But I suppose, if you must demonstrate your “superior to all of mankind’s” knowledge, and can’t help yourself, at least treat it as a sci-fi question. Like I’m asking how Star Trek phasers or Harry Potter spells work, or some shit. (In other words “it doesn’t work in reality” is not an answer - ‘splain it in the setting.)

Okay, I get Pauli Exclusion Principle is a thing, that no two half-spin particles (fermions) can occupy the same space, but what I don’t get, are the mechanics behind that. In other words, what is the "Pauli Exclusion Principle Force"? What causes it to be a thing, and how does gravity overcome the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

I *kinda* get that in neutron stars, that it has to do with things being so close together that the Uncertainty Principle comes into play -- that it’s a bit fuzzy as to whether they are in the same spot due to the jittery nature of quantum mechanics. That their potential momentum is off the charts because their potential location is as nil as it can get. It seems Pauli is still in play at this point though, just shifting, and I don’t quite understand why this ceases to be the case after a certain critical mass, allowing the collapse. Not that I doubt it happens, I just wish to know more about the how of it.

TL;DR: How does gravity overcome the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

>>9339296
(Looks around in paranoia.)

The prevailing theory is that eventually this potential momentum becomes so severe that, instead of particles merging into neutrons, it becomes energetically favorable for neutrons to pair up in opposite-spin pairs, sort of like electrons do in superconducting materials. Then, the two-neutron systems are bosons, not fermions, and therefore need not obey the exclusion principle. If enough of them do that, *poof*.

This also why kugelblitz black holes are easier to make than regular ones. You're photons that aren't affected by the pauli exclusion principle, since they aren't fermions. You skip that step, as you can squeeze em together all ya want. Ya just need some insanely powerful and insanely accurate lasers.

>>9339306
>You're photons
Your photons... Yes, thank you.

>>9339296
You're speaking with that very "asshole", you prissy faggot.

>>9339312

>>9337349
i find this black box thing really interesting desu
do you consider extra dimensions are also black boxes?
26-dimensional in bosonic string theory
10-dimensional in superstring theory
11-dimensional in supergravity theory and M-theory
how would you link black holes and extra dimensions?

this thread needs more Queens Of The Stone Age:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt4zsArRK2U

>>9339391
I consider it a black box if there's no way to observationally test any part of it, which is my general complaint about string theory. I'd say ya midas well be saying everything is run by extradimensional gremlins, but I dun wanna dog on it too much, as I think some useful stuff may come out of the mathematical voyage, at the very least for other applications.

But I canna recall which string theories deal with black holes how, and I've kinda ignored it for about a decade now, so any info I did have would be dated.

Dunno if someone else around here could help - I recall there is a lot of odd stuff regarding them in string theory, just can't regurgitate it with any confidence of the validity.

none

>>9339465
could you ever test extra dimensions in any way?
also, do you ever go with a gut feeling?
>can't regurgitate it with any confidence of the validity
come on, who cares?
we're all anonymous

>>9339542
>could you ever test extra dimensions in any way?
Theoretically yes, since they interact with ours. As I said elsewhere, there were some attempted tests of the older theories involving particle colliders - and when those failed to pan out, they just tacked on more to explain why they did not. Those revisions could be tested as well - but, again, it'd take a particle collider with the radius of the moon to do so. I suppose, barring a dark age, and assuming we get off this rock, we'll have one someday, as we'll also wanna measure that top quark - but assuming we don't have quantum gravity to make it pointless by then, they could just move the black box borders again.

Quantum gravity just seems much more promising to me as a GUT, as it's a single phenomenon that we observe and already ties into other models with extremely good observational evidence, so the proposals are usually testable (which has already killed several of them). String theory is just an increasingly complex set of mathematical laws that explain what's going on, but presents no testable evidence, and thus cannot be killed.

>can't regurgitate it with any confidence of the validity
>come on, who cares?
I don't want to knowingly spread misinformation. Gotta have a confidence factor of at least 50% before I go shooting my mouth off.

>also, do you ever go with a gut feeling?
Not without reason. At least not when I'm talking about science, something specifically designed to rule out being mislead by said. I tend to more skeptical about some things than others, even when both have evidence - but I'm old enough to have been wrong enough times to know, well, we are all John Snow, stranger things in heaven and on Earth, and all that jazz. Indeed, if I don't like something with some evidence due to the principle or feeling, it usually later turns out later to be true.

...and that's not just in science. Truth, is very often ugly. So, if anything, go with the opposite of the gut feeling.

>>9339465
>>9339542
>>9339686
stop flooding the board with this nonsense

>>9339690

>>9339690
Thought it was just black holes you had a problem with...

>>9339708
That post isn't mine i.e. the guy who previously pointed out that black holes are still very much in the realm of speculative science.
I really don't get why everyone got so hang-up over that.

>>9339690
nice contribution, retard

>>9340051
Hrmm... Not sure if he had a problem with string theory or with my saying I can't say dick about it.

I don't have a problem with a people who are skeptical about singularities - I mean there are other explanations in the works, just none that, currently, mesh with observation that I know of. If someone comes up with an alternative explanation that works observationally, I'm willing to entertain it. But the existence of super-massive event horizons at least, is pretty well established.

So when you also denied the validity of the Oumuamua observation, and started being, well, just plain rude, I decided to slot you in the tinfoil/troll camp. ...but I didn't realize you had somehow thought I meant that the telescope detections of Oumuamua were related to LIGO. Not sure, from your arguments, why LIGO and her sister's observations would be any less relevant than Oumuamua's and her sister's, but I apologize, at least, for countering rudeness with rudeness. That's the sort of spiralling feedback effect that tends to make this place such shit sometimes. Even if, on some other boards, it's for entertainment, and the entire point, it shouldn't be on /sci/.

>>9340900
>started being, well, just plain rude
Being acerbic is just standard practice on imageboards. It makes getting (you)s easier.
>it shouldn't be on /sci/.
Well, it is. Because it works.

>>9341534
We really need to go back to the days before we had (You)s.

Not related, but the ability to reply to threads you haven't read is also getting to be problematic. And while I love that thread watcher, it sure as heck makes it hard to just wait someone out.

>>9336882
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
MODS