[lightarrow]

In addition, in a neutron star, gravity isn't strong enough to overcome all other physical forces.  The neutrons still exist, and they aren't all squashed into the same point.  In a black hole, the neutrons will be torn apart into their component particles, and all of this will be smushed together into one point.  The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.

Excuse me jpetruccelli, I don't know much about black holes, but how can you differentiate between a massive object, still made of matter (even if probably not neutrons anylonger) and still having a finite radius, which can't let light escape from its surface, from a singularity? How do we know what there is inside the event horizon?

[demadone (OP)]

Protons seem to really have sub-sub atomic particles called quacks. Guess I did miss something in physics.

[JP]

Lightarrow, as I understand it (I'm not a black hole expert), a black hole occurs when something gets so dense that light can't escape it.  Therefore anything that dense is a black hole.  As part of the formation, everything collapses into a singularity.  I don't know if there's any theoretical objects of finite density that act like that (I'm under the impression that there aren't any). 

[yor_on]

A black hole is something we can't know about as I see it.
The reason for that is that we can't observe it.

The only thing 'observable' should be its event horizon.
But if a 'super massive' black hole has a 'greater' event horizon.
Shouldn't there should be some relation between that and its mass?

But mass is energy, right?
So couldn't it be some sort of very dense BEC?
And as light can be superimposed.

Does it need to take any place?

But if it could be described as a dimensionless point, how does it express itself as mass?

[Vern]

Protons seem to really have sub-sub atomic particles called quacks. Guess I did miss something in physics.

I think maybe you mean quarks. Yes; that is the present model as I understand it.

[yor_on]

And another thing.

I was up on a wiki just before writing this:)
Just to check my views, ah, sort of:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

And now I got myself a new headache:)
We used to speak of black holes as something that could happen at all times.
Then for some year ago there came that theory stating that nothing ever could fall past the event horizon, if you remember:)

Looking at the wiki now I see that it states.

"A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them.
In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line).

Attempting to make an object approaching the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude becomes unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets."

As well as...

"For the case of the horizon around a black hole, observers stationary with respect to a distant object will all agree on where the horizon is. While this seems to allow an observer lowered towards the hole on a rope to contact the horizon, in practice this cannot be done.

If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon. If the observer is quickly lowered by another observer, then indeed the first observer, and some of the rope can touch and even cross the (second observer's) event horizon.

If the rope is pulled taut to fish the first observer back out, then the forces along the rope increase without bound as they approach the event horizon, and at some point the rope must break. Furthermore, the break must occur not at the event horizon, but at a point where the second observer can observe it.

Attempting to stick a rigid rod through the hole's horizon cannot be done: if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed.

From the point of view of an observer at the end of the rod, the event horizon remains hopelessly out of reach. If the rod is lowered quickly, then the same problems as with the rope are encountered: the rod must break and the broken-off pieces inevitably fall in.

These peculiarities only occur because of the supposition that the observers be stationary with respect to some other distant observer.

Observers who fall into the hole are moving with respect to the distant observer, and so perceive the horizon as being in a different location, seeming to recede in front of them so that they never contact it. Increasing tidal forces (and eventual impact with the hole's gravitational singularity) are the only locally noticeable effects.

While this seems to allow an infalling observer to relay information from objects outside their perceived horizon but inside the distant observer's perceived horizon, in practice the horizon recedes by an amount small enough that by the time the infalling observer receives any signal from farther into the hole, they've already crossed what the distant observer perceived to be the horizon, and this reception event (and any retransmission) can't be seen by the distant observer."

This seems to me as an even 'newer' definition.

Let us take this idea from the perspective of that 'in falling' observer.

I would expect him to fall 'in his time/frame' 'normally.
Without problems passing that event horizon, even though he would be 'dismembered' by the gravitational forces that lurks there.

As otherwise nothing ever could come over that event horizon.
And I don't think this idea is the same as the one saw last year?

I will try to look that one up too, but
Where is this proved?

By what experiments?

----

If you think of it it also seems to state that we will have an enormous amount of 'matter' resting(?) around that 'for ever receding' event horizon from the 'matters' perspective.
But never reaching any end (event horizon) ?

[Vern]

I think you're right yor_on; Black Hole theory seems to be a work in progress. I can never get past the rule that total mass is conserved, even though there is a singularity that is like infinity. How does infinity + another chunk make more infinity ??

[yor_on]

I think it's the same idea that I saw one year ago?
But now stated as a fact, in that wiki.

As I remember that idea said that there could be no 'new' black holes, as they all had to 'become' just after or in the Big Bang?

So how does it explain this?

"Using Chandra, scientists surveyed a sample of clusters and counted the fraction of galaxies with rapidly growing supermassive black holes, known as active galactic nuclei (or AGN). 
The data show, for the first time, that younger, more distant galaxy clusters contained far more AGN than older, nearby ones. "
From http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=23101

And here is a timetable, anyone want to pinpoint when the Black holes came?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

" How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?

Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came. "

So according to Hawkins there won't be any mass transformed into energy then?
So maybe we are talking 'condensed matter' inside those, growing, black holes?


As I have great trouble seeing light as containing all 'information' of its state as 'matter'.
If the information isn't seen as the precise amount of energy needed to replace all that 'matter' disappearing/transformed.

If this is right and light is defined by its waves?
How would that 'information' be encoded?

(if it was something more to it than only its energy content.)

And would black holes then be the last place still containing 'fresh' energy.
As it should be extremly condensed inside 'there'?

[yor_on]

Also it seems that hawking radiation allows the negative part of the spontaneous 'pair particle creation' in space to reduce the mass of the black hole. That means that it actually have to pass the event horizon.
The positive particle will then be what creates the radiation?

---

Why I say that it has to pass the event horizon, is because otherwise that black hole would never disappear.
That as its creation was in the big bang and no amount of matter outside the event horizon (that this negative particle might destroy while 'never' coming to that 'receding' event horizon) would mean anything to that 'original' black hole.

Do I make sense here.
Or?
----------

Doesn't that mean that Black holes are tapping the universe of energy?
Or how does it keeps its 'balance'?

A black hole is defined as releasing no light/information.
And it doesn't, as the positive particle will be outside the EV and the negative goes away into the Black hole.

But it still ...must... communicate somehow.
To allow the 'balance' between this spontaneous 'nano timed' creation of particle pairs in empty space.
And the negation of mass that will answer inside that event horizon, to keep the universe balance of energy the same.
I find my views rather sane when reading this:)

Am I getting this wrong?

--

Is this an example of entanglement?
But it seems also as some sort of 'communication'?

Very strange:)

---------

[Vern]

I don't think anyone has it exactly right yet. That's why it keeps changing. It seems that the event horizon has different consequences depending upon where it is described. Wiki has trouble keeping up:

The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could "disappear" in a black hole. It is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that information cannot be destroyed. [1]

[yor_on]

Maybe entanglement is the explanation?
But then it also seems as if the universe will know when one 'side' of this entanglement is destroyed?
And that it will treat that outside 'times' jurisdiction.

[demadone (OP)]

The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.

[Vern]

The more I'm learning the more I realize how complex the matter of black holes is. But I will know it.

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.

Can you visualize the conversion process; or is it that one instant it is mass; the next instant it is energy.

[demadone (OP)]

If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.

[Vern]

If you're referring to nuclear reactions on stars like our sun then yes matter is converted into energy. However the reaction does not go with an energy to matter conversion. Matter just changes in form i.e Hydrogen <-> Helium.

Yes; but one thing becoming another thing over a period of time involves a process. There are intermediate steps in processes. Can you imagine the process by which matter becomes energy. John Wheeler imagined a process where the core of matter gave up its energy and disappeared into a sort of space foam. I didn't like that scheme.

[demadone (OP)]

That doesn't sound too scientific. My assumption is that if you look into the sub sub sub atomic particles you'll find that they are made of energy. Now my other assumption is that there is only one type of energy from which atoms are made. It can be felt as warmth but differs from potential and kinetic energy. It may be kinetic energy but I wouldn't be too quick to make that conclusion.

What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.

[Vern]

What makes sub atomic particles different is how this energy behaves. As at now I assume this behavior may be frequency of motion or type of motion or both.

When we allow electrons and positrons to collide we see them become photons of electromagnetic energy. Maybe the energy was photons all along; maybe it was just trapped in a pattern to form the electron and positron. []

[lightarrow]

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.

Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space".  []

[Vern]

Mass is not energy. It can be converted to energy but it's not energy itself.

Infact. Mass is not "energy", is "energy in a fixed region of space".  []

I like your description, lightarrow, especially that two photons moving relative to each other form a system that is itself mass.

[yor_on]

So if light is the equivalence to mass?

Does space 'bend' inside a particle accelerator?
And photons near the Sun traveling away, shouldn't they create gravitational effects too?

Have we measured that?