Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: rhlopez on 12/01/2009 08:44:20
-
Ricardo asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi,
If a black hole is a point in space of huge gravitational strength and even light cannot escape from it, then the "matter" near the centre should collide at very fast pace; spinning like in a cyclotron. Wouldn't this cause atomic fusions near the centre of the singularity?
Thanks,
Ricardo
What do you think?
-
A black hole is where matter breaks down.
Fusion is a result of matter.
But outside the event horizon?
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11848.html
-
You need atoms for nuclear reactions to take place. No atoms would survive inside a black hole; they would be ripped apart by gravitational forces as they fell towards the singularity.
My belief is that no matter at all exists inside a black hole. Matter and energy are equivalent (according to GR) and I think all matter will become energy at the singularity.
-
I think an event horizon gives a air of mysticism to blackholes I see no reason why matter cannot exist compressed to a somewhat greater degree than what it is in Neutron stars which afterall approach the event horizon stage with escape velocities of at least .3c,
I think the matter in a black hole is compressed to a degree that Baryons lose their identity and degenerate to mass of Quarks and Gluon's
-
There must be a 'stadium' where what we call quarks and gluons find their 'stability'.
You can see that moment in several ways.
One is to expect it to be created as a 'chain' of events.
That thought would imply that we have an organized arrow of time.
No matter if it would walk backwards and then forward again doing this 'creation'.
It would still be an 'chain' of events with some sort of strange arrow of 'time'.
The other I can see now would be to assume that 'time' has no place at this level/state.
If so, what we would 'be', seems more like some sort of 'symmetry break', where one state tips over to another.
And the only thing allowing it seems to be 'density/energy'.
But what one need to see clearly is that only one of them (spacetime/black holes) will be 'stable' seen from our frame of reference.
The one originating from a black hole, where we have a gluon quark soup or even just 'energy/density' is originating from a very special situation/enclosure in our universe.
Matter and what we call space/vacuum though, from our perspective seen, seems to manage just finely without any special conditions except 'themselves' being created.
So 'matter' is a very finetuned 'state' uniquely fitted to our universe.
And even though it might be broken down to 'energy.
And 'energy' might be seen as a innate property of space as it 'spontaneously' under certain conditions can create 'matter'.
Matter will be a 'condition' all on its own.
So 'space' might be a 'field' of unreleased energy, and matter is a extreme condition of the same.
Reasoning like this it seems to me rather reasonable to see them both as the same.
And that what differs them is some sort of 'symmetry breaking'.
That implies that what we call spacetime is a whole, expressing itself to us as different 'states' of the same 'substance'.
And that what we call energy is not really defined yet.
And what we should try to understand is under what 'conditions' 'systems' find those stable expressions allowing for 'spacetime'.
It's not really important what we call that thing creating those possibilities.
You can call it, 'one dimensional Strings' 'Branes', 'Atman', 'Energy' or even 'God'.
As long as you don't expect others to accept your beliefs as definite 'truths', that should be your own affair.
Also I would like to point out that if this would be correct, then definitions like 'distance made' length, width, height and time just is very local 'expressions', eminently fitting to the processes we see inside 'spacetime' but still only 'stable' under a very special condition called 'spacetime'.
Take it with what it deserves, a grain of salt:)
But that is the nearest I've came to understand 'spacetime' yet.
----------
And that black holes as well as photons and the Big Bang share one thing.
They are defined as 'singularities'.
At least they are to me::))
In the case of photons and Black holes we are sure that they exist in 'some' way.
And there are a lot of evidence pointing to some sort of 'Big Bang' too.
But they are still enigmas to us.
Just like 'spacetime':)
-
The answer to the original question is a clear no. Black holes have nothing to do with this process.
Stars are giant nuclear fusion reactors
Hydrogen is fused to helium wit the help of a lotlle carbon oxygen and nitrogen nucleii in most main sequence stars.
Helium is fused into carbon nitrogen and oxygen in the later srages of larger stars.
Nuclei from Oxygen to Iron are are made in the final flares of large stars
Nucleii heavier than iron are made during supernova explosions.
-
The answers given fit with what I have come to suspect. There would be nothing to fuse in a Black Hole. But I suspect, contrary to currently accepted theory, that the innards of a Black Hole never quite reaches a singularity, just as an accelerated piece of matter never quite reaches c.
-
Vern, if one accept that empty vacuum is capable of spontaneous particles, and I do believe so:)
Then I will accept that a black hole might be a 'reversal' of that, as in a state where matter can be 'backed up' into a 'dimension less' point.
But as we never can be sure without observing it, I don't really know?
It may also be as you and syhprum sees it.
Would 'any which way' invalidate your hypothesis?
As you are looking on from a 'photonic' state of view.
For you it can go 'both' ways, as long as a consequence of it is photons:)
Or do I read your ideas wrong here?
Let me put it this way, do you think that photons can be 'superimposed'?
---
Thinking back I do remember you discussing black holes as being a problem?
I told you my mind is like a sieve:)
-
Would 'any which way' invalidate your hypothesis?
As you are looking on from a 'photonic' state of view.
For you it can go 'both' ways, as long as a consequence of it is photons:)
Or do I read your ideas wrong here?
Yes; a Black Hole that contains a singularity would invalidate my pet Photon-Only universe scheme. So I pay attention to indications that there is a singularity there. So far I've seen lots of theory that there is a singularity in Black Holes but no hard evidence. I know GR permits it; I don't know if GR demands it.
Let me put it this way, do you think that photons can be 'superimposed'?
Yes; but I think there has to be something there that conserves the energy of the system. I don't know what that is.
-
Vern, if one accept that empty vacuum is capable of spontaneous particles, and I do believe so:)
Then I will accept that a black hole might be a 'reversal' of that, as in a state where matter can be 'backed up' into a 'dimension less' point.
That reads like it could be a singularity. I would have trouble figuring out how it is that mass is conserved when it can be backed down into the fine structure of space. I know that John Wheeler thought of space like that. I always had trouble with the idea.
-
Would 'any which way' invalidate your hypothesis?
As you are looking on from a 'photonic' state of view.
For you it can go 'both' ways, as long as a consequence of it is photons:)
Or do I read your ideas wrong here?
Yes; a Black Hole that contains a singularity would invalidate my pet Photon-Only universe scheme. So I pay attention to indications that there is a singularity there. So far I've seen lots of theory that there is a singularity in Black Holes but no hard evidence. I know GR permits it; I don't know if GR demands it.
Let me put it this way, do you think that photons can be 'superimposed'?
Yes; but I think there has to be something there that conserves the energy of the system. I don't know what that is.
What do you see hindering the energy to be conserved inside a black hole?
Or do you mean the conservation of energy as a 'whole universe' in balance?
And that the Black holes could be seen as 'stealing' energy?
If I assume (not again huh:) that it is how mass might be conserved inside space I understand your point.
But if space is not an object in itself, but more like a 'statement' :)
It's like gravity wells, they are beautiful descriptions and they make a lot of sense to us, but do they exist?
Can we see any holes and heights in space?
It is an expression of gravity, nothing more, and what is gravity?
A property of matter and acceleration, right.
Can we say that there are less or more space where we have a 'gravity well'?
Yes we can, but only if being inside that gravity well.
From the outside that statement would be wrong, as you can circumferent a black hole much faster from outside its event horizon than as you would be able to travel 'around' from the inside.
This is a very bad example but you need to see past that, to the idea itself.
Space inside a gravity well can be infinite, or as near as we won't notice any difference if being in that frame.
Does that mean that our circumference done from the outside would be wrong then?
No it won't.
Does it mean that space, if we say that it can contain one energy unit per light second' then, as seen from the outside, only can contain (as we count on its radius) 100 light seconds of energy?
Well, as seen from our frame that will be correct, but when being inside that other black hole frame counting on the same radius we might say that the energy stored there well could be infinite.
So that is how I think of it.
Matter and space are the same and what differs a black hole from 'spacetime' is the event horizon.
In our spacetime space is mostly a 'open' place, described by three dimensions plus times arrow.
Those places that not are like this, even though being observed as being inside 'spacetime', like black holes we will notice being 'set apart' by 'spacetime'.
-
What do you see hindering the energy to be conserved inside a black hole?
The singularity inside a black hole, since it is infinite, would make it impossible to compute the massiveness from observation of anything inside the Black Hole. Add anything you want to the singularity and you still have a singularity.
Or do you mean the conservation of energy as a 'whole universe' in balance?
And that the Black holes could be seen as 'stealing' energy?
I think that energy must be conserved. I didn't see Black Holes as 'stealing' energy. And I suspect that Black Holes don't really exist. I think they are just almost Black Holes, very massive but never quite reaching that Black Hole state. But that is just so my pet photon-only universe scheme can survive [:)]
I see your thinking in the remainder of your post. I'm still open and trying to learn about things around the event horizon. I notice that most folks here seem to ascribe some magical properties to the event horizon that folks other places don't see the same way.
-
I hope you don't think I do that.
It's just that I see that event horizon as a real tangible barrier at least for us.
That it might according to Hawking release its 'information/energy' at some time will mean nothing to us.
I don't think we will be there to see it:)
-
I hope you don't think I do that.
It's just that I see that event horizon as a real tangible barrier at least for us.
That it might according to Hawking release its 'information/energy' at some time will mean nothing to us.
I don't think we will be there to see it:)
I think you are right. I didn't mean that you might be viewing the event horizen in some magical way, I meant that on this forum I see the general view is that things would be torn asunder at the event horizon. Some other places I see the view that there would be nothing spectacular at the event horizon. It would just be the place that when passed through, there was no getting back out.
-
My belief is that no matter at all exists inside a black hole. Matter and energy are equivalent (according to GR) and I think all matter will become energy at the singularity.
Don't you mean matter and energy will become the thing they are both made out of. Not to sound cryptic or anything.
-
Don't you worry Mr Lsu:)
You're perfectly clear.
Like a photon, if I may say so:)
-
My belief is that no matter at all exists inside a black hole. Matter and energy are equivalent (according to GR) and I think all matter will become energy at the singularity.
Don't you mean matter and energy will become the thing they are both made out of. Not to sound cryptic or anything.
You seem to be thinking of a third primary thing besides energy and matter. I think that would just complicate the concept. It is not difficult to describe how to make matter out of energy or to make energy out of matter.
I think it was lightarrow who said any time you confine energy to a local area it may be viewed as matter. The mass to energy conversion would be just the opposite; the release of energy from its confined area.
-
You guys are deep...
like a hole...
I have been thinking about something and it seems like the right people are here. I know this is wrong and is a sci-fi novel thing. If you had a negative universe as well as our own and a black hole was a link between the two (bare with me), would the "negative" light coming into our universe cancel out the positive light going in to make it seem black, or would it appear clear?
One word answers are much appreciated.
-
No.
-
One word answers are much appreciated.
To expand and violate your one word rule [:)] light is light. There is no negative light. Even in a universe made of anti-matter light is still ordinary light. I don't know what a negative universe is.
-
I think what "lets split up" meant by a "negative universe" is what others might think of as a universe made up of antimatter. My (limited)understanding of string theory, M theory and other theories do not rule out other universe existing in these other universes/dimensions, nor do they rule out them consisting of antiparticles. However since all known antimatter seem to possess mass and light (photons) are essentially massless particles, they seem unlikely to have an anti- counterpart. If however they in deed had an antimatter equivalent, they would most likely self annihilate when they met their matter counterparts and produce energy/radiation along the electromagnetic spectrum, one of which would in fact be visible light. Sorry to give a long answer but cant help myself :) I agree with VERN when he answers simply NO
-
Since atoms would likely be ripped apart to their subatomic building blocks (i.e. quarks),and possibly to their building blocks (if they exist), the journey of atoms to the center of black hole would likely be the opposite of fusion. The gravitational differences would become so large even on the tiniest scale, spaghettification would reduce all forms of matter to their lesser building blocks and perhaps into pure energy. Fusion probably does take place near the event horizon in the accretion disk that orbit a black hole where temperatures and pressures are like the ones found in the cores of stars. Since the matter making up the accretion disk is most likely to contain mostly hydrogen and helium, fusion would be the likely result. Since the temperatures and pressures might be much greater than in stellar cores, much heavier elements may be able to be fused here, before being ultimately ripped apart later on their journey