# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: From neutron star to Black Hole...........?  (Read 24732 times)

#### LeeE

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3382
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #50 on: 28/04/2009 15:30:34 »
The Planck units i.e. the Planck time and distance units, do not set a lower limit on what can exist, just on what can be meaningfully calculated in some physics models.

For example, if you move one Planck distance unit in one Plank time unit, you'll be traveling at 'c', but if the Planck time and distance units represent the lower limits of what can happen then the minimum speed that anything could move would also seem to be 'c', for to move more slowly you'd have to move less than one Planck distance unit in one Planck time unit.

On a macroscopic scale, with enough individual particles, the proportion between the particles that are moving and those that are not could vary, and so average out at less than 'c'.  When we just think about single particles though, we'd have to conjecture that the particle cannot move continuously but must move and then remain stationary for a varying number of Planck time units if it is to accelerate/decelerate.

For this to work, the particle would need to store and keep track of it's movement so that it would know how many Planck time 'ticks' need to pass between each movement, depending on it's acceleration or deceleration.  This effectively adds more properties to the particle.

#### litespeed

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 419
• Thanked: 1 times
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #51 on: 28/04/2009 17:33:19 »
LeeE,

Is there speculation particles move one plank unit via a separate dimension? Could time in that dimension change according to momentum of the particle so that it reapears at the next plank unit at the appropriate time, thus displaying a corresponding 3D velocity?

#### litespeed

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 419
• Thanked: 1 times
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #52 on: 29/04/2009 19:36:09 »

"Scientists found this neutron star – a dense whirling ball of neutrons about 12 miles in diameter – in an extremely young star cluster. Astronomers were able to use well-determined properties of other stars in the cluster to deduce that the parent star of this neutron star was at least 40 times the mass of the sun."

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/05-171.html

#### litespeed

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 419
• Thanked: 1 times
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #53 on: 16/06/2009 16:58:45 »
Lee and Others,

I believe the influence of acceleration and mass have not been adequately described by physics. Specifically, Neutron Stars are formed without the massive acceleration created by more massive objects that become black holes.

Accordingly, mass accumulation on a Neutron Star will do nothing more then add mass, IMHO.  On the other hand, a much larger mass that colapses to a black hole includes enough acceleration to activate relativistic effects. Accordingly, mass that enters a black hole will also accelerate to relativistic velocities that bring time to a virtual, if not actual, dead stop.  This includes light.

Light speed varies according to the mass of the medium being transited. For instance, I have heard photons produced at the center of the sun take enormous times to reach the surface and then speed through the vacuum of space at c to us.  Light entering a black whole doesn't have many choices. One possibility is, with the proper angle, a photon might actually orbit inside a black hole. More likely, it seems the photon will encounter mass and 1) increase the temperature of the mass inside (as light does on a black surface) or, perhaps, transit that mass at nearly zero velocity.

In summary, black holes simply accumulate mass and temperature in normal ways described by The Standard Model. I do not believe there is anything 'infinite' about them.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #54 on: 16/06/2009 17:58:56 »
Quote from: litebind
In summary, black holes simply accumulate mass and temperature in normal ways described by The Standard Model. I do not believe there is anything 'infinite' about them.
You might be right; I can't model the formation of a black hole in a computer when I take relativity phenomena into account. I can never make it to the singularity. The best I can ever do is to get almost there. That leads me to suspect that black holes just almost exist. Or maybe I should say almost black holes exist.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2009 18:42:48 by Vern »

#### LeeE

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3382
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #55 on: 16/06/2009 20:53:13 »
LeeE,

Is there speculation particles move one plank unit via a separate dimension? Could time in that dimension change according to momentum of the particle so that it reapears at the next plank unit at the appropriate time, thus displaying a corresponding 3D velocity?

Sorry, missed this when first posted.

If someone speculates about it then there is speculation

The trouble with the time dimension is that, from our point of view, it clearly and obviously seems to be quite different to the spatial dimensions.  However, relativity indicates that space and time cannot be separated, and furthermore, some of the relativistic phenomena, such as relativistic time-dilation indicate that they are the same (the phenomenon of relativistic time-dilation can be explained by saying that the sum of the spatial and temporal vectors always equals 'c', and because the two vectors can be so summed suggests that they are the same).

As to whether time in another dimension could change according to the momentum of a particle; well, I'd say it would be possible if a mechanism could be found/conceived to make it happen.  That is, yes it could happen, but only if there's a reason for it to happen.  Just speculating about whether it does happen, or not, without first finding a causal mechanism to make it happen, doesn't really get you anywhere though.

This, and your next post, seem to me to be moving towards something I have thought a lot about; the fundamental nature of change.  Although I've mostly been thinking in terms of change of location within a dimension, whether it be spatial or temporal, it seems to apply rather more widely than I initially thought.

A model for dealing with space-time, unless it is to be restricted to the specific four-dimensional space-time that we appear to exist within, must be able to deal with both more than and less than four dimensions using the same rules; a five-dimensional environment should be describable in the same terms as a two, three, four or n-dimensional environment.  In the model that I've been thinking about, something that exists within an n-dimensional environment does not need to occupy space in every dimension of that environment i.e. it may have zero-size in one or more of the dimensions of the environment it occupies, and this in turn leads to two quite distinctly different modes of change, or in other words, movement through dimensions.  If something has zero-size in a particular dimension then its position in that dimension can be precisely defined, and if it is precisely defined then any change of position to another position will leave it a precise distance away from where it was.  Thus, any change of position would seem to require a discrete 'step'.  Conversely, if the object has non-zero size in a dimension, or more specifically, if the boundaries of the object cannot be precisely defined, we cannot know precisely how far it has moved when it changes position and so cannot define a discrete 'step'; in fact, the best solution would seem to be a super-position of positions i.e. the 'blurry' object is occupying several positions, to greater or lesser degrees.

You can also see this effect with numbers.  If I ask what is the difference between 1.4 and 1.5? the answer is 0.1.  This answer is only possible though, because 1.4 and 1.5 are precisely defined, as is the difference between them, but if I were to ask; what is the difference between the ranges of approximately 1.4-4.2 and 3.3-5.3? the answer cannot be a single precise value without qualifying the answer to a specific set of conditions i.e. you could resolve the two ranges to single precise values by a number of methods, let's say by ignoring the approximation and then averaging them, for example, and then get a single precise value for the difference between the two resolved values, but this would be akin to collapsing a non-zero size to a zero-size, and would not match the reality of what it was you were trying to measure.

Sorry for going a bit off-topic here, but the post isn't easily addressed without some background.

#### LeeE

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3382
##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #56 on: 20/01/2010 21:07:53 »
Just a belated addendum to this thread:  The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit indicates that if a neutron star acquires sufficient extra mass after formation it will collapse into a BH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff_limit

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### From neutron star to Black Hole...........?
« Reply #56 on: 20/01/2010 21:07:53 »