/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7067183]

Let's talk about one of the many mysteries of the universe: Black holes.

So, to kick off debate, what are your thoughts about black holes?

[Anonymous No.7067185]

I was watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w-Ygkfx4mI
and now I'm wondering how does Hawking radiation really work?
If nothing can escape a black whole, then radiation shouldn't be able to do it either.

Any physicist care to share their insights?

[Anonymous No.7067220]

>>7067185
the problem there is the wrong vocabulary

[Sage No.7067223]

>>7067183
It's not a hole.
It's probably not even black

[Anonymous No.7067232]

>>7067223
Did I say it was a hole, literally? We all know they're not actually holes, they're spherical. They do make holes in Spacetime, though. Hence the "hole" in "Black Hole."

[Anonymous No.7067260]

>>7067232
How do scientist know that the sun punctuates space like that?

[Anonymous No.7067264]

>>7067260
There are planets circling the "well", that's how.

[Anonymous No.7067578]

>>7067232
So, they rip through space-time.

[Anonymous No.7067595]

black holes dont exist

[Anonymous No.7067700]

>>7067183
Is there really such a thing as the "gentle giant" black hole depicted in Interstellar, where it might be possible to cross the event horizon without being stretched to death?

Not sure if that was rooted in any kind of science or just created for the movie

[Anonymous No.7067702]

>>7067595
a very smart man with a PhD in physics said this to me

[Anonymous No.7067706]

>>7067700
Sure, the bigger the black hole (meaning bigger Schwarzschild radius), the smaller the forces at the Schwarzschild radius get. I think the black hole in Interstellar was supposed to be a supermassive black hole, so that's possible.

[Anonymous No.7067718]

>>7067185
>If nothing can escape a black whole
That's not true. Plenty of things escape the pull of a black hole. Otherwise we wouldn't get images like this.

You're thinking of items that pass beyond the event horizon. As far as I know, Hawking radiation happens just outside the EH.

[Anonymous No.7068259]

what if space is tiny little black holes

[Anonymous No.7068274]

>>7067183
Hawking radiation is an effect of quantum randomness in a vacuum. A particle antiparticle pair will come into existence at the event horizon in such a way that the antimatter is pulled into the black hole and the matter escapes. If the black hole is relatively small it could take extremely long to evaporate because the event horizon has a smaller hurface area

[Anonymous No.7068297]

>>7068274
what if the matter i pulled into the hole and the antimatter escapes? wouldn't that cancel the "dying" of the black hole out?

[Anonymous No.7068316]

>>7068274
That's the wrong way around. The larger the black hole, the longer it takes evaporate, as the ratio of mass to surface area gets larger.

[Anonymous No.7068355]

>>7067183

That wherever the black hole occupies, it occupies a fraction, so it's (something/blackhole#+oppositeofblackhole#)

[Anonymous No.7068363]

hey..slightly off topic-but on the subject of cosmology..
so if a star is 100 light years away...and we are mapping it out via telescope..
our map is 100 years old?
this has always been frustrating for me to wrap my brain around the idea that we are making assumptions about where the star is going to be..
or where galaxies are and the like
but is the best we can do and I should just take it for what it is
like how the sun could have disappeared 8 minutes ago and I'm just living in the past enjoying the morning light..

[Physicist !uZrWZXbsDo No.7068374]

Ok actual physicist studying gravitational waves here.

First off what is a black hole?
A black hole is the result of a high density of mass. It doesn't mean lots of mass like most people think. Anything can be become a black hole if you compress it enough. If you compress the sun to the size of Manhattan you have a black hole. Earth would be a size of your thumb.

Why does this happen?
Because gravity. Everything has mass.* All mass has gravity. Everything is pulled in by gravity. If gravity is strong enough it can pull light enough so it can't escape. So enough mass and you have enough pull to trap light in the same way as you can't jump of the Earth unless you're Chuck Norris. And thus a black hole.

Now you may be asking you said that the amount of mass didn't matter. This is true. You see the denser something is the stronger it's gravitational pull is. Imagination having a bedsheet. Now imagination putting lots of pea's spread evenly over it. It doesn't really bend a lot does it. But if you put all your pea's in the centre you get a dent in the fabric. If I take the matter in a black hole and spread it evenly over a galaxy the galaxy doesn't become a giant black hole.


Now black holes are interesting because they cause some freaky shit to happen.
First off OP's picture. This is caused not by the warping of space but by the black hole gravity bending the light. This is called gravitational lensing. It happens to a lot of big objects such as galaxies.

>>7067232
A black hole is not a hole in spacetime. It's called a black hole because it's a hole which nothing not even light could escape from. For a long time it was just a hole. It was a black ... hole.

Of course a black hole is anything but. If you could see one you would see the surrounding extremely large accretion disk (big ring of gas and dust) being superheated and screening out in x-rays and light.

[Anonymous No.7068376]

>>7068363
It's okay to not know where the objects are currently though. If we needed that, we would just have to follow the observe position of the object, which would put the traveler on a Bezier curve behind the object. If the traveler goes faster than the object, they can catch up to it.

[Anonymous No.7068377]

>>7068363
Yes, every kind of information that reaches you is actually a slightly delayed version of reality. The phenomenon is called retarded space time. Still, I don't really get what your question is?

[Anonymous No.7068390]

>>7068374
>A black hole is the result of a high density of mass. It doesn't mean lots of mass like most people think.
That is not true. I has nothing to do with high density. In fact, any accumulation of any density can become a black hole at some point, if there's just enough of it.

[Physicist !uZrWZXbsDo No.7068408]

This video really shows the scale of most black holes and their mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgNDao7m41M

>>7067260

The sun doesn't puncture space-time it dents it.
That's how we model gravity and it appears to work like that. If it really does work like that we don't know but so far every theory to use that model works.

>>7067578
They don't rip space time they just create a well with a slope so big nothing can climb out again.

>>7067595
We're pretty sure they do. We have found evidence of lots of stellar black holes and some supermassive ones.

>>7067700
Sadly I'm yet to watch Interstellar but if you could it would be worth the trip.

>>7068259
Interestingly enough you do get microblack holes in theory. If they exist or not is another mater entirely.

>>7068274
Hawking radiation doesn't just deal with virtual particles. It also has to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Because the location of everything really small is just a wave function probability their is a small chance a particle will be outside the event horizon and can escape.
This is what makes up hawking radiation and what causes a black hole to eventually evaporate away.However you got it the wrong way round. The smaller the black hole the faster it will evaporate.

For the record virtual particles almost certainly don't exist they are just modelled like they are. Hawking radiation is almost certainly 100% of the result of the uncertainty principle.

>>7068363
Well it's really a question of scale. Imagine a car is driving down a motorway in slow motion. I mean the video is a metre pre minute or even a metre per hour slow. If I stopped the film and asked you where will the car be in five seconds time you will be able to tell me. Any change in direction is so slow, any possible collision is easy to see.
Now let's take Andromeda. It's about 2.5 million light years away. It's travelling towards us at 250 thousand miles per hour. We have plenty of time to plot it's course.

[Anonymous No.7068432]

>>7068408
>For the record virtual particles almost certainly don't exist they are just modelled like they are. Hawking radiation is almost certainly 100% of the result of the uncertainty principle.
>Virtual particles don't exist because the uncertainty principle.
Top kek.

[Anonymous No.7068433]

>>7067595
>black holes dont exist

So what are these stars orbiting?

[Physicist !uZrWZXbsDo No.7068438]

>>7068432
Not what I said.

[Anonymous No.7068440]

>>7068433
ur mom

[Anonymous No.7068444]

>>7068438
You can't have the uncertainty principle without virtual particles. Your claim is illogical.

Virtual particles do exist, as seen in the casimir effect.

[Anonymous No.7068744]

Our model is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-IW90lMSQ

[Anonymous No.7068772]

>>7068440
hue

[Anonymous No.7068779]

Mildly related question:

How come there's a limit to the degeneracy pressure in white dwarfs/neutron stars?

Without this limit there would be no black holes, no?

[Anonymous No.7068802]

>>7068374
Is this post performance art or are you actually like this?

[Anonymous No.7068812]

Why are photons affected by black holes if they have no mass?

[Anonymous No.7068813]

I think that a star's implosion into a black hole is strong enough to send shockwaves back in time.

[Nolan No.7068815]

>>7068813
Tell me more.

[Anonymous No.7068818]

>>7068815
I have absolutely nothing but general knowledge and assid talk to substantiate it.

[Nolan No.7068826]

>>7068818
I will credit you as Theoretical Scientific Advisor.

[Anonymous No.7068827]

>>7068818
But it's the idea that a singularity hasn't started to us yet, but we experience gradually increasing temporal distortions the closer our timeline reaches the moment it actually happens.
Imagine a stream flowing slowly in one direction and dropping a rock into it. The oscillations grow more subtle they expand from the epicenter, but are more intense near it. We're experiencing the longer wavelengths, but the oscillations are intensifying because as we travel closer to it, it will technically be beginning, despite having already happened.

[Anonymous No.7068832]

>>7068827
I figured this because technically there are places in the universe where Earth is thousands of years older than it is now.

[Anonymous No.7068848]

>>7068826
Sweet.
Now gimme monies.

[Anonymous No.7068852]

>>7068744
that's really good.

[Anonymous No.7068865]

>>7068832
There are no places like that.

[Anonymous No.7068869]

>>7068865
Not to us right now, no.

[Anonymous No.7068887]

>>7068390
Too much fail.

[Anonymous No.7068913]

>>7068887
Nice reasoning there m8

[Anonymous No.7068921]

>>7068274
If a black hole got small enough, wouldn't it eventually cease to be a black hole because it wouldn't have enough gravity to pull in the light? What would such an entity look like?

[Anonymous No.7068931]

>>7068921
The smaller the black hole, the less we know about it theoretically. The general consensus is that at some point hypothetical quantum gravity effects will become dominant. There is however no size limit for black holes in GR. They can be as small as they like, but energy density of course gets higher and higher. An easy paradox that arises from this is: QFT assumes elementary particles to be point-like, so when a mass is focused in one point that object is automatically a black hole in the sense of GR. It should be obvious that something's wrong when the two theories work together.

[Anonymous No.7069095]

>>7068865
If a planet is 65 million light-years away from us, and were to look at us through a telescope, they wouldn't see humans. They would see the dinosaurs, maybe the earth getting rekt by an asteroid. I believe that is what he meant.

[Anonymous No.7069097]

>>7069095
Forget the asteroid part, though, they would just see its effects most likely.

[Anonymous No.7069128]

>>7068390
A spherical body will become a black hole if it's small enough that its radius is smaller than it's schwarszchild radius, which is a fdunction of the objects mass. It is density, not mass, that matters. it just happens that high enough masses eventually collapse into a body dense enough to become a black hole.

[Anonymous No.7069205]

>>7068408
>mfw suns start stacking

[Anonymous No.7069220]

>>7069095
>dinosaurs
>Earth is thousands of years older than it is now

You can see earth in the past but you can't see it in the future.

[Anonymous No.7069282]

>>7069128
You haven't figured out what I was trying to say. Take <div class="math">R_S = 2M</div> and <div class="math">M = \frac{4}{3} \pi \rho R_S^3</div> and combine them into <div class="math">R_S = \sqrt{\frac{3}{8 \pi \rho}}</div> that means for every density you'll eventually have a Schwarzschild radius, provided that the overall mass is big enough. In the end this just shows that's it's really irrelevant whether it's mass or density or whatever, it just depends from what end you look at it, what you keep fixed etc.

[Anonymous No.7069391]

Are black holes even real?

[Anonymous No.7069393]

>>7067183
A fuckup in the universe. Like when an unstoppable object crashes into an unmovable object, and this is what plays out.

[Anonymous No.7069408]

>>7069220
Oh, I misread it.

[Anonymous No.7069458]

>>7068390
maybe next year when you get to grade 7 science class you'll realise how retarded what you just said was

[Anonymous No.7069468]

>>7069458
Any kind of reasoning?

[Anonymous No.7069818]

>>7068812
they carry energy and energy = mass

[Anonymous No.7069824]

>>7069818
No, that is not the reason. The reason is that mass bends space time, and photons move through space time just like everything else does.

[Anonymous No.7069845]

How do black holes form? Surely as the stellar remains get denser, time dilation on the surface from the point of view of an external observer would increase in order to stall the collapse. You'll be left with an object that still emits light, just red-shifted to absurd levels.

[Anonymous No.7069862]

>>7067232
Let me ask someone this

The closer you move into the galaxy does the mass of planets and stars grow. I mean there couldnt be a solar system like ours halfway into this galaxy cause wouldnt it just be out of place?

Just answer are planets and suns fundamentally higher density the closer you move towards the center of a galaxy.

[Anonymous No.7069885]

>>7069862
No. Sure there is more mass at the center of galaxies but galaxies are HUGE. They have a lot more empty space than they have matter.

>are planets and suns fundamentally higher density the closer you move towards the center of a galaxy.
Gravity can only do so much work, so rocky planets like earth can't get any more dense without more mass, but if they have more mass they'll become gas giants. same reasoning goes for gas giants and stars. stars will probably be more dense as you approach the center because the quantum fluctuations at the big bang pulled more matter into those spots, but supermassive blackholes can fling other supermassive objects out.

[Anonymous No.7069893]

>>7069885
so then the question is, are there only suns the closer you move towards the center of a galaxy. Im not asking about right near the black hole lets say 3/4 the way vs us being 1/4 of the way near.

i understand there is a lot of space between the space objects, but given the time this galaxy has been able to mature, im simply asking are there fundamentally less planets, and more super massive suns the closer you get to the center

[Anonymous No.7069990]

>>7069893
as I said before solar systems are usually very far away from each other. The closest star to our sun is 4~5 light years away, this "smallest distance" will in general shrink as you approach the middle of the galaxy. I still think you're misinterpreting the scale of these objects. Each solar system is can be thought of as a closed SYSTEM, with 98% of the mass in the star and the other mass forming planets or asteroids or just space dust. Imagine each solar system being it's own atom. high density material doesn't just mosh together into superheavy elements, they stay in their own relative equilibrium. In order to fuse into a heavier element a lot of energy/pressure needs to be put on them, this can be equivocated to being close to the black hole. Only then will the solar systems begin to tear apart and by then I'm guessing they'll already be inside the black hole if it's big enough.

[Anonymous No.7070017]

>>7067183
The inner core presumably contains the dankest memes known to man

[Anonymous No.7070132]

>>7068433
is it possible to move a black hole by using other large objects and pulling it around?

[Anonymous No.7070171]

>>7070132
how would you move the other large objects?

[Anonymous No.7070586]

>>7070132
of course you can
imagine two equally large black holes spaced some distance apart, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't pull into each other.

You could pull it around with a gravity tractor and launch it at planets and shit, they're very heavy though so you need something that's also very heavy to move it meaningful distances, otherwise it's just going to suck your tractor into itself.

An idea could be to disperse large quantities of gravel or similar into the hole from a safe distance and let the tiny tiny forces accumulate over time to accelerate the hole towards your trail of gravel until you have achieved the speed you want, then you can steer it by flying next to it with a heavy spaceship to pull the hole towards you, possibly employing the gravel tactic again but from the side until you have your desired trajectory.

[Anonymous No.7070685]

Ok so, I have questions.

Why does density play a part in the gravitational pull of something?
Density is just how close atoms are to each other right?
So in a black hole all the atoms must be getting crushed against each other, like if you crushed a bunch of marbles until you got marble powder, all the particles that compose the atoms should break lose and form one huge nucleus that is the black hole itself.

But why does this new state of matter have more gravitational pull when it's just taking up less space?
What happens to all the particles that are being crushed in the center of the black hole?
Do they vibrate? Do they contain energy?
If gravitons exist, wouldn't they collapse under their own effects as well?

[Anonymous No.7070721]

>>7070685
>Why does density play a part in the gravitational pull of something?

Well it both does and doesn't, there's no difference in the forces exerted by two masses vastly differing in density, the difference lies in the surface gravity.
In the case of the less dense object you're farther away from the center of mass when you're at its surface and thus the gravitational pull is less than at the surface of the dense object, where you would be closer to the center of mass and thus experience a larger force (remember <span class="math">F=G=\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/spoiler], the smaller the distance <span class="math">r[/spoiler], the larger the force)

[Anonymous No.7070727]

>>7070721
That's <span class="math">F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/spoiler], of course

[Anonymous No.7070729]

>>7070685
>Why does density play a part in the gravitational pull of something?

Because gravitational force is determined not only by mass, but by distance to that mass. So if two objects have M and m mass and its all focused into two points, then the equation is simply GMm/r^2. But if the mass of the first object is spread over a large distance, then you would have to do multiple calculations (G[M(1)m/r(1)^2 + M(2)m/r(2)^2 + M(3)m/r(3)^2...]).

[Anonymous No.7070741]

>>7070721
this. the kind of density we're dealing with in black holes can't be achieved without a hyper giant star's amount of mass pushing in on itself.

[Anonymous No.7070754]

>>7070741
There is no "kind of density we're with in black holes". The average density of a black hole is dependant on it's mass. The larger the black hole's mass, the less density it has. If calculate the average density of a supermassive black hole with say 10 million solar masses, then the average density is not even that high.

[Anonymous No.7070760]

>>7070754
Don't confuse the event horizon of a black hole with its volume.

[Anonymous No.7070778]

>>7070760
That's why I said average density and not density. An object with the mass of a black hole and the radius of the Schwarzschild radius is the same black hole as a much smaller object. A black hole has no real density, but you can treat the Schwarzschild radius as it's physical radius and define some sort of critical density/average density.

[Anonymous No.7070785]

>>7070778
>A black hole has no real density

Then how does it exist?

[Anonymous No.7070786]

>>7070785
He means that it has no meaningful density, presumably the density is infinite with a singularity in its center and that's a useless value.

[Anonymous No.7070790]

>>7070785
The truth is that we know very little about anything inside the event horizon.

General relativity makes really good predictions for stuff we can check, it also makes some predictions about what's inside a black hole, the nature of the singularity. It not having finite density is one of those. We can't check it but are inclined to believe due to success of GR elsewhere.

A theory of quantum gravity could say more.

[Anonymous No.7070808]

>>7070786
>>7070790


Well, is there a limit to how small something can be?
If there is no limit, then a black hole is a star imploding forever right?

[Anonymous No.7070817]

>>7070808
>Well, is there a limit to how small something can be?
Theroetically, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

[Anonymous No.7070820]

>>7070808
>Well, is there a limit to how small something can be?
You're trying to use your everyday intuition to understand what a singularity is. Doesn't work. You can't understand particles such as electrons as really small spheres of solid material either.

The singularity is a point mass.

[Anonymous No.7070822]

>>7070808
>Well, is there a limit to how small something can be?
Yeah, nobody knows for sure

We compress things so they get smaller and smaller and at one point they get so small that they suck in light and it disappears beneath a mystery cloak of invisibility, we literally can't see them and there's nothing we can do about it.
We know it's there because of how it interacts with the stuff around it but we can't tell how large it is because we can't see it or measure its size in any way.

Did it compress infinitely and became a singularity?
Did it compress a lot but not infinitely?
Did it stop compressing immediately after becoming smaller than its schwarzschild radius?

We can't tell.

[Anonymous No.7070825]

>>7070817
Oh it's that shit again.

[Anonymous No.7070828]

>>7070820
>You can't understand particles such as electrons as really small spheres of solid material either.

I actually imagine them as being composed of other particles that are orbiting each other and then they themselves might be composed of other particles.
So my electrons aren't solid spheres.

[Anonymous No.7070835]

>>7067185
Hawking radiation is when the pair appear at the edge of the event horizon. Momentum means they are traveling in opposite vectors.
One of the pair appears within the event horizon, one appears outside of the event horizon. Because one is outside the event horizon, it "escapes" which is hawking radiation.

[Anonymous No.7070841]

>>7070828
There's no experimental evidence for a substructure of elementary particles, so nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.7070851]

>>7070828
The math that predicts the things we can see and touch extraordinarily well (mechanics etc) describes objects with which we are intuitively familiar.

The math that predicts that really small and weird with extraordinary precision does not describe anything we are intuitively familiar with (like probability field), and our intuitions won't get us far in understanding it. Through studying and manipulating the mathematical objects which predict so well, new intuitions can build about the small and weird.

[Anonymous No.7070873]

>>7070586
Are you saying i would need something of comparable mass to move a black hole?

[Anonymous No.7070904]

>>7070873
No, i'm even suggesting using gravel.

You can substitute mass of your tractor for traction time, a large mass will exert a larger force on the black hole and thus will move it faster, but a small mass exerting a smaller force over a longer time will eventually amount to the same movement

It's called impulse, and it's defined as the force F applied over time T.

letting a 10N force act on the black hole for 10 seconds will produce the same change in momentum as applying a 1N force on the black hole for 100 seconds.
<span class="math">10N * 10s = 1N * 100s = 100Ns[/spoiler]

You're thus free to use whatever mass you want to attract the black hole, given that you can spare the time.

[Anonymous No.7070910]

>>7070904
and spare the mass

[Anonymous No.7070918]

>>7070910
:^)

As long as you keep the mass at a safe distance you'd be good, the force applied from your mass is proportional to the distance to the black hole though (<span class="math">F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/spoiler]) so you'd want to be as close as you can without accidentally getting sucked in for maximum tractor efficiency, if you want to keep it.

[Anonymous No.7070926]

>>7070918
what says that exerting a force on a black hole will move it?

[Anonymous No.7070929]

>>7070926
Newtons third law

[Anonymous No.7070930]

>>7070918
I meant to say that flinging mass into a blackhole, even if its grains of gravel, is a complete waste of resources. you might as well use it to build a brand new black hole.

[Anonymous No.7070938]

>>7070929
but wouldn't the black holes force over exert the tractors? the sum of forces would have to be 0, right?

[Anonymous No.7070942]

>>7070929
Newton's third law does not dictate a measure in distance, he asked if exerting a force on the black hole will physically move it.

[Anonymous No.7070945]

>>7070930
It's not a waste if the benefits outweigh the cost, in this case the benefit would be the increased force exerted on the black hole by the gravel given the shorter distance, a distance and thus an applied force that is unattainable without destroying the tractor.

The fact that the gravel eventually ends up inside the black hole is just a consequence of getting close.

[Anonymous No.7070946]

>>7070817
lol, theoretical mathematics.
muh plank is smaller then my string

[Anonymous No.7070952]

>>7067183
>what are your thoughts about black holes?

a somewhat interesting THEORY.

THEORY. THEORY. THEORY.
THEORY. THEORY. THEORY.
THEORY. THEORY. THEORY.

[Anonymous No.7070955]

>>7070938
>the sum of forces would have to be 0, right?
Yes, the sum.
But that sum includes the force applied on the gravel by the black hole
by extension the gravel exerts an equal and opposite force on the black hole.
this force may result in a smaller change in velocity for the black hole given its enormous mass but it's there nonetheless and it's not 0.

>>7070942
You're right
Does an object change its momentum when a force is applied though?
Is a black hole an object?

If yes to both, then the force applied through the third law will move the hole.

[Anonymous No.7070964]

>>7070952
your mom is a theory

[Anonymous No.7070966]

>>7070945
What I'm trying to get at here is that you would have no reason to move a black hole, and doing it using the gravitational pull of gravel would take literally 100,000 fucktons of it. It would be a complete waste of time and matter. I was trying to make a joke but you're too autistic to understand, I should've known better.

[Anonymous No.7070978]

>>7070966
He's simply stating that it could be done, theoretically. In the future it could be done without using "fucktons" of gravel, perhaps there will be another method developed.

There could arise a scenario where a "moving" a black hole some distance could benefit mankind.

[Anonymous No.7070980]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a black hole is basically a point in space (can it be called space?) which has such a strong gravitational pull that no particle or even electromagnetic radiation will escape from it.

So it's pulling in everything that comes near it, not just physical matter, but also light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. All of it is being concentrated into one singular point in space(?). This single point is limited to volume, but the rate of mass accumulation is infinite.

It is thought that at the center of every galaxy, there is a black hole, so we are spiraling in the orbit of a black hole.

But what is at the center? Why does it exist? If energy can neither be destroyed, nor created, then what is a black hole doing to all the energy it pulls into this single point?

I'm guessing that our big bang event was actually the other end to a black hole. This black hole being created in some other universe. Our black holes are doing the same, creating new universes through a similar process as our big bang event. This would keep the law of conservation of energy correct because the energy being consumed by the black hole is equal to the energy being distributed into the new universe. But this also means that there exists an infinite amount of universes, nested withing each other. Therefore there must be a universe at the top, from which all other universes were created. But how did this universe come about? Where did all the energy come from?

[Anonymous No.7070981]

>>7070966
only 100,000 fucktons? :^)

>you would have no reason to move a black hole
humor the guy who asked about it
you don't need a reason other than fuck yeah

>you're too autistic to understand
I got the joke, i even used a funny smiling man meme to show that i did
for the sake of discussion and possible interest i replied to it though

[Anonymous No.7070989]

>>7070980
>inb4 black holes are the cause of dark energy

[Anonymous No.7070991]

>>7070980
If black holes were creating universes. Those universes would be quite small, and would not contain any life as we know it.

Since that universe would then create another one just like it, in your "closed loop" scenario there is no way it would be a loop, since we exist.

however, if our universe is creating a smaller one, which in turn is creating a smaller one, and so on, then thats a plausible hypothesis imo.

[Anonymous No.7070996]

>>7070964

afraid your house of cards might collapse? afraid your precious institutional dogma is threatened?

mature, honest, truthful scientists have traded the fallacy of screaming "Proof" for the word "Evidence" and the concept of "Law" for the "theorem", "axiom" or "model"

yes. it's a theory. sure there's something out there that has been observed and measured in remote ways which exhibits certain behavior which can be partially described with the "Theory" of something currently referred to as black holes. Don't be so arrogant as to pretend to think anyone has it all completely resolved, quantified and known and acurately, completely and thoroughly described with a current theory

[Anonymous No.7071000]

>>7067183
I think they cause too much crime

[Anonymous No.7071001]

>>7067232
I've seen this image before and still don't understand it. It depicts space time as a flat plane, which isn't true, as space is all around us. So shouldn't the object (star, blackhole) be surrounded by a 3d grid, which is bending into the center of the said object?

[Anonymous No.7071002]

>>7070991
to be fair, our universe started off "quite small" and this anons idea could explain why our universe has finite matter

[Anonymous No.7071008]

>>7071001
its pretty hard to draw 4-5 dimensional objects on a flat piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.7071015]

>>7071008
it's impossible to draw because in 3 spatial dimensions it just looks like a black hole. It's completely unintuitive and doesn't help with understanding whats going on

[Anonymous No.7071018]

>>7071002
I'm not arguing the fact that those universes would expand, but the fact that each universe in the loop would be more and more finite in matter, until theoretically there is not enough to form another black hole to continue the loop.

[Anonymous No.7071024]

>>7071002
I think its more plausible to say that the matter going into the dark hole, is simply transported somewhere else, yet we have not yet witnessed such phenomena as matter falling out of a hole. Unless you think the Big Bang could account for that.

[Anonymous No.7071028]

>>7071018
depends, it might be possible that as time goes to infinity, every black hole in our universe slowly combines into one massive black hole which contains all matter. what happens after that I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.7071036]

>>7070991
>Those universes would be quite small
>>7071002
>our universe started off "quite small"
>>7071018
>our universe started off "quite small"

Let's not forget that every distance we have is measured in relation to other distances in our universe

If we suddenly made everything in the universe half its size nobody could tell

There's nothing saying everything isn't shrinking in our universe rather than that our universe is expanding, it's a meaningless distinction

point being: the size and mechanics of things in a universe within our universe doesn't have to translate into a corresponding size in ours

[Anonymous No.7071042]

>>7071036
accidental misquote, meant "I'm not arguing the fact that those universes would expand" on your last one there

[Anonymous No.7071044]

>>7071028
That would be assuming that no matter escapes the black hole and doesn't continue a loop.

As time goes to infinity the universe would continue to expand, and unlikely that the black holes would ever meet to "combine"

[Anonymous No.7071052]

>>7071044
>As time goes to infinity the universe would continue to expand, and unlikely that the black holes would ever meet to "combine"
>he thinks the universe will continue to expand
topkek

[Anonymous No.7071061]

>>7071036
I'm >>7071002
No one is saying that everything is shrinking nor expanding. The objects in the universe however are moving away from each other. Just because something is small doesn't mean it can't be massive, for god's sake you're in a thread about black holes.

[Anonymous No.7071062]

>>7071036
>meaningless distinction

I don't quite understand, could you rephrase that statement?

Sorry, its late, and my brain is fried.

Still though, going off your point being, if the universes were a closed loop, life as we know it could not exist. Since we are in that loop, (unless the loop has not closed yet) this doesn't add up.

[Anonymous No.7071065]

>>7071052
Would you like to include your reasonings as to why you are giggling?

[Anonymous No.7071066]

>>7070980
We can't tell if it's actually a point in space (a singularity) or not.
The reason we think they might be is because Einsteins equations permit singularities, the four different types of black holes are all solutions to Einstein's field equations.
There are scientists however who think the black holes doesn't actually form singularities, but rather just ordinary extremely dense bodies of matter that are covered by an event horizon which prohibit any information from exiting the black hole.

Regardless they still have an event horizon and will behave as you described it, suck in light and all that shit.

"what" is at the center is a matter of speculation, we don't know.
if it isn't a singularity it would be densely packed matter, likely in some unorthodox form we don't know about.
Why does it exist?
Well, SOMETHING has to happen when you pack shit together, its existence is a consequence of billions of years of packing unfathomable quantities of shit together, i mean all the things has to go somewhere and it's like stomping paper down your recycle bin taken to its extreme

Energy cannot be destroyed, it's still there in the form of mass-energy, angular momentum and electric charge.
i.e. what it's "doing" with it is use it to gain mass, angular momentum and charge

note that "size" isn't a property of energy so just because the hole effectively strips the things it sucks in of its spatial properties doesn't mean it's violating the conservation of energy

[Anonymous No.7071079]

>>7071065
because you have down syndrome and you don't realize you do. you make a claim which may or may not be true and you act like its fact.

[Anonymous No.7071084]

>>7071061
I'm just clarifying that you couldn't tell the experienced size inside an internal sub-universe from its experienced size in our own.
just because our universe started out small doesn't mean that the hypothesized universe spawned in the center of a black hole would in any way be considered "a small universe".
I was just assuming you meant that it was "ok" that the universes created were small because ours used to be too, my point was that spatial distances are inherent to the universe in which they are applied so the intuition that a universe inside a black hole would somehow be crowded or small is misguided.

[Anonymous No.7071087]

>>7071079
Since you are so much more intelligent than me, please explain how a black hole will affect the entropy of the known universe?

[Anonymous No.7071089]

>>7071087
still acting retarded huh, nigger I never said I knew im just saying dont act like you know when you dont faggot.

[Anonymous No.7071092]

I'm>>7071024
>>7071084
But would it be smaller than ours?

[Anonymous No.7071094]

>>7071089
I know that the universe is expanding and that all of the black holes have not affected entropy yet.

This argument stops now, if you are not contributing, please, try not to post.

[Anonymous No.7071106]

>>7071092
they'd each be small in their own sense because they'd each occupy the space of a blackhole in the next universe up.
I was just trying to clarify as well, as one anon said life could never exist if the universe is too small and densely packed. yet our universe started our so densely packed and SMALL atoms couldn't even form. these conditions could also be present in a blackhole

[Anonymous No.7071108]

>>7071094
>I know that the universe is expanding and that all of the black holes have not affected entropy yet.
>I somehow magically know this

god damn you are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.7071110]

>>7071092
"smaller" isn't applicable, the sizes, scales and distances we experience in our universe are just properties of our universe, they don't carry through to the new universe being created and thus it's meaningless to compare their "sizes".

In our universe, the new universe occupies an infinitesimally small volume, thus to us the total size of the new universe is 0
But in the new universe they only measure distances in relation to other distances within that universe, they would have no notion of the size of our universe

We can't tell how "big" our universe is in relation to other universes, because distances are only meaningful within your own universe.


As i said in >>7071036, nobody could tell if everything in our universe suddenly halved in size.
The "scale" of things is arbitrary and undefined.

[Anonymous No.7071111]

>>7071108
stop being a philosopher on a science board, these are widely accepted. search for the data yourself

[Anonymous No.7071116]

>>7071106
Ah, I understand, this makes sense. Leaves me pondering though...

[Anonymous No.7071124]

>>7071110
True, the sizes, and scales, and distances are properties of our universe,

I guess my point is, only a fraction of the matter of our universe goes into a black hole, therefore that fraction is what has to come out. If we measure that fraction that went into the black hole, is it safe to assume that is all that the "new" universe would have. Thus making it "smaller" than ours.

[Anonymous No.7071127]

>>7071124
once again its late, i apologize for how difficult that post is to read.

[Anonymous No.7071141]

>>7071124
this is what I was trying to say in this post >>7071002
but there's no possible way of ever knowing or testing this.

[Anonymous No.7071151]

>>7071141
Oh shit, you were. I guess we are beating a dead horse...there is no way of testing this yet.

Im assuming that we haven't sent a probe into a dark hole is because there is no way to ever get the information back, right?

[Anonymous No.7071162]

>>7070926
What says a black hole is stationary? If they exist at the center of galaxies, and galaxies are moving, then black holes are moving too.

[Anonymous No.7071168]

>>7071124
>>7071141
I misunderstood you then! and mixed it up with actual spatial sizes

If we assume that our universe is the only one, then in order to not violate the conservation of energy its total energy would have to be 0
this in turn means that the "finite matter" we have is just a remnant of the birth of the universe

If a universe it created inside a black hole its available matter isn't coupled with the total amount of matter that has been absorbed by the hole but rather a consequence of the conditions after its birth since its total energy is 0 either way
Rather there are some conditions that need to be met for a universe-formation to trigger, possibly the same conditions as required to create a singularity

This removes the need for a parent universe to have more energy than its "children" (something that isn't viable in the long run) since the total energy of a universe is always 0

[VC No.7071169]

>>7071036
>>>7070991
>>Those universes would be quite small
>>>7071002
>>our universe started off "quite small"
>>>7071018
>>our universe started off "quite small"

tens of billions of light years across is quite small?

[Anonymous No.7071175]

>>7070991
Have we or can we measure the total amount of matter/energy in our universe? How do we know how long it took from the big bang event to now? Maybe the universe's being created have been in the process of creation for as long as our universe. Do we know how long black holes we've observed have been in existence? It seems the whole idea of big and small (physical and time based) is ludicrous in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous No.7071181]

>>7071008
>>7071015
So in other words, the picture is pointless, and the nobody really understands what spacetime looks like because we live in a 3d world.

So what the fuck is all this 11 dimension bs that Asian guy is talking about.

[Anonymous No.7071184]

>>7071181
>So in other words, the picture is pointless
no

[VC No.7071188]

>>7071110
>nobody could tell if everything in our universe suddenly halved in size

halved in size, without changes in mass, yeah we could tell if that happened...

[Anonymous No.7071193]

>>7069282
Just looking at that: The universe is fairly homogenous looking at great distances. So we can find an average density for the universe and insert that into <div class="math">R_S = \sqrt{\frac{3c^2}{8\piG\rho}}</div> (in SI units). That would give us the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, right? I found several estimates of the average density of the universe which gives a Schwarzschild radius of a dozen to several dozen billion lightyears. What is the meaning of that?

[VC No.7071196]

>>7071181
>So in other words, the picture is pointless, and the nobody really understands what spacetime looks like because we live in a 3d world.

the picture has always been correct, sorry, but that is the accepted way of visually representing the effects of space time curvature.

[Anonymous No.7071199]

>>7071196
Just looking at that: The universe is fairly homogenous looking at great distances. So we can find an average density for the universe and insert that into <div class="math">R_S = \sqrt{\frac{3 c^2}{8 \pi G \rho}}</div>(in SI units). That would give us the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, right? I found several estimates of the average density of the universe which gives a Schwarzschild radius of a dozen to several dozen billion lightyears. What is the meaning of that?

[Anonymous No.7071206]

>>7071110
I'm this anon>>7070980
I started quite the discussion here.

The new universe would still be made up of elementary particles, wouldn't it? So if another species were to arise in this fictional universe, and they were intelligent enough to probe and measure the small particles making up their matter, they would see similar things we see. Or is this an invalid assumption. Would there be a chance that their elementary particles would differ from the electron/proton/neutron configuration in ours?

[Anonymous No.7071207]

>>7071188
physical quantities like mass are elements in the everything-set, they too will be halved in size

[Anonymous No.7071220]

>>7071199
I was actually meaning to cite >>7069282

[Anonymous No.7071221]

>>7071151

what if we used another black hole to pull you out of another black hole?

like this

[Anonymous No.7071227]

>>7071206
>The new universe would still be made up of elementary particles, wouldn't it?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Would there be a chance that their elementary particles would differ from the electron/proton/neutron configuration in ours?
I haven't seen a mathematical model for a different setup of elementary particles
You could probably just change around some values of how different quantum fields interact and get vastly different mechanics of universes

For example light could have mass (or whatever you would call it if it had mass), there could be no massless particles at all, all particles could be massless etc.

Electrons and protons could be the same size, who knows.

Perhaps our configuration of particles are the only configuration that allows life, it would be interesting with supercomputer simulations of universes with different elementary particles.

[Anonymous No.7071229]

>>7071111
stop acting like the retard that thinks he knows everything, we know our current theories have problems and we are trying to figure out why. you act like we know for a fact the universe will continue to expand indefinitely when in reality you are just a mentally ill manchild trying to play pretend scientists on /sci/.

[VC No.7071230]

>>7071220

ah, okay thx

i was a bit puzzled at what i said wrongly

all good :D

[Anonymous No.7071232]

>>7071221
I've always wondered this, what happens when two black holes get near each other. can a large black hole siphon mass from a smaller one in a similar way stars siphon mass off of each other? What would two black holes colliding even look like when looking at the details?

[Anonymous No.7071234]

>>7071221
Then i would end up in another black hole.

[Anonymous No.7071245]

>>7071234

then we use another one!

[Anonymous No.7071251]

>>7071196
But it seems so wrong. A 3d object, pulling down on a 2d plane. But in reality, if we could approach the object (black hole) we would be able to see all sides of it. And no matter which way we approach it, the effect on us would be the same. So in the diagram, are we always placed on the plane, and any movement towards the object, would cause us to be pulled faster? Is that all its saying?

[Anonymous No.7071257]

>>7071245
you could use five black holes and slingshot yourself out of harms way!

[Anonymous No.7071258]

>>7071232
As soon as the two event horizons touch, the two black holes would instantly combine into a larger black hole with an event horizon that is the sum of the initial two horizons.

[Anonymous No.7071260]

>>7071258
this seems unreal, how the fuck are they just going to instantaneously warp into each other in 0 time. sucks that this has never been observed as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.7071272]

>>7071257

That seems too primitive anon.

You could use gravity to propel yourself to safety like a rail gun

[Anonymous No.7071277]

>>7071258

does it look like dis?

[Anonymous No.7071278]

>>7071277
fuck yeah, cosmology

[VC No.7071281]

>>7071251
>But it seems so wrong. A 3d object, pulling down on a 2d plane.

you could substitute any picture, its just a representation of the singularity. and it doesnt look 3d to me, it looks like a circle :/

>But in reality, if we could approach the object (black hole) we would be able to see all sides of it. And no matter which way we approach it, the effect on us would be the same.

yep, its a lot of gravity in one place, thats all as an oversimplification.

>So in the diagram, are we always placed on the plane,

the plane represents space, so yep, we are on that plane, as we approach the singularity space-time is distorted, the closer to the black hole the more distortion of the area around us.

>and any movement towards the object, would cause us to be pulled faster? Is that all its saying?

hmmm, when we get close enough its like a 12 inch ruler was shrunk to 11 inches, the space is distorted more the close we are to it.

[Anonymous No.7071282]

>>7071260
>how the fuck are they just going to instantaneously warp into each other in 0 time

Because they bend the space between them?
This would allow them to travel instantaneously to where they fuse with the other black hole I would think.

[VC No.7071287]

>>7071258
>As soon as the two event horizons touch, the two black holes would instantly combine into a larger black hole with an event horizon that is the sum of the initial two horizons.

what?

[Anonymous No.7071309]

>>7071277
The radius of the final black hole is too large. It's more like pic related.

[Anonymous No.7071310]

>>7071245
>>7071257
>>7071272
kek
thank god /sci/ isnt always as pretentious as it can be

[Anonymous No.7071321]

>>7071282
so basically you dont know.

[Anonymous No.7071325]

>>7071321

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42cqhjmt4vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciCOtj-624Q

[Anonymous No.7071327]

>>7071321
It's just what the mathematics told me, no idea how that looks like in reality.

[Anonymous No.7071329]

>>7067183
They are teleportation to other galaxies
idk why hasn't someone thrown an object in one already

[VC No.7071332]

>>7071327

what happens when the hawkings radiation from one, enters the event horizon of the other?

[Anonymous No.7071333]

>>7071329
>They are teleportation to other galaxies

yeah you just have to stand in a black hole and play the right song with your ocarina.

[Anonymous No.7071335]

>>7071332
:o


Does it negate the mass loss from the first black hole?
Do both lose mass?

[Anonymous No.7071344]

>>7071332
>>7071335
I guess? What does it matter, it's not like it's a huge effect or anything, it's rather negligible really.

[Anonymous No.7071346]

>>7071344
but over tiiiime

[Anonymous No.7071349]

>>7071325
>using meme relativity to model black holes
>even then the model still doesn't do what you said it does.
into the trash it goes

[VC No.7071354]

>>7071325

thanks for the links anon, they were really enjoyable. :D

[Anonymous No.7071371]

>>7071329

Jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.7071600]

>>7069845
I was wondering something similar - to an external observer, shouldn't a black hole be littered with the redshifted images of everything that's crossed the horizon?

[Anonymous No.7071917]

>>7071600
they are
they're also covered by the gravitationally distorted light coming from behind them

you can never "see" the surface

[Anonymous No.7073455]

>>7068408
Is it possible to create something that can climb in and out and around the slope? How far can human technology go?

[Anonymous No.7073478]

>>7068408
>The mass of 1000 suns
Fuck 4chan for allowing me to make this connection...

[Anonymous No.7073482]

>>7073478
>7.49 billion trillion times the speed of light
>Not thinking about maybe using a relativistic calculation instead

[Anonymous No.7073487]

>>7073478
the math on this image is incredibly wrong

[Anonymous No.7073492]

>>7073482
>>7073487
there's a corrected one out there...somewhere.

[Anonymous No.7073494]

>>7073482
>Bitches don't know 'bout my tachyon spooge

[Anonymous No.7073512]

>>7067185

Holy fucking shit I want to murder. Irritating as fuck.