[neilep (OP)]

Dearest Peeps with degrees in Black hole & Big-ripology,

As a sheepy I of course luff to rip stuff...it's not easy getting in to a fine denier set of stockings without ripping them ewe know !....

As ewe may or may not know, one of the theories proposed for the end of the Universe is called the big rip...effectively the universe will keep on expanding until it just rips apart thusly !


 [ Invalid Attachment ]
The Actual Universe Ripping Apart

I really hope it does not rip apart on a Tuesday as that is when I get my deliveries.

Anyway, as mentioned about a zillion times on this site black holes are well dense and in the middle of them is a thing that is infinitely dense.....what I'd like to know is , should the big rip happen how will it rip apart the singularity that is ' well ard ' inside a black hole  ?


See ?  klevur eh ?...I bet the Big-Ripologists never thought of that when they proposed that theory ! *smug sheepy*

so, whajafink ?



hugs & shmishes



Neil
At Night In The Dark I let Rip From My Own Black Hole
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Mr. Scientist]

I am an advocator of the theory to be the final destruction of the universe when value reach critical point w<1.

In response to your question, it will almost certainly cause a catastrophic depletion of energy in all four corners of the universe, that means, nothing will survive this tremendous rip. Where the energy goes is up for speculation. Chances are is that the energy will tunnel into another universe which is just beginning in its ground state.

[neilep (OP)]

I am an advocator of the theory to be the final destruction of the universe when value reach critical point w<1.

In response to your question, it will almost certainly cause a catastrophic depletion of energy in all four corners of the universe, that means, nothing will survive this tremendous rip. Where the energy goes is up for speculation. Chances are is that the energy will tunnel into another universe which is just beginning in its ground state.

Thank ewe for this very much indeed  Mr Scientist.I do still find it difficult to understand the concept of how something that is infinitely dense can be destroyed but will accept it as so.

[JP]

Disclaimer: I'm just speculating there, since its outside my field. 

There's the question of what exactly the singularity in a black hole is.  A lot of folks think the idea of the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity breaks down at the small scales, and that a more complete quantum gravity theory would help with that and maybe not have infinite density.  If it's a quantum object with some size, then maybe it could be ripped apart?  Also, black holes should give off energy from Hawking radiation.  The energy they give off will get ripped away from them in this scenario, so you would expect black holes to evaporate from loss of energy (and therefore mass) alone, even if they didn't get "ripped" themselves.

[neilep (OP)]

Disclaimer: I'm just speculating there, since its outside my field. 

There's the question of what exactly the singularity in a black hole is.  A lot of folks think the idea of the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity breaks down at the small scales, and that a more complete quantum gravity theory would help with that and maybe not have infinite density.  If it's a quantum object with some size, then maybe it could be ripped apart?  Also, black holes should give off energy from Hawking radiation.  The energy they give off will get ripped away from them in this scenario, so you would expect black holes to evaporate from loss of energy (and therefore mass) alone, even if they didn't get "ripped" themselves.

Thank ewe very much jpetruccelli for your very interesting answer. So the infinite density thing is speculation. Perhaps when they get that LHC thing working it will reveal some amazing data.

If a black hole was nearby, then perhaps we could fly around it and see what's on the other side !

[Don_1]

"How Can 'The Big Rip' destroy a Black Hole ?"

Come come now sheepy, you don't expect me to believe that you've never had a real hot vindalo!

[neilep (OP)]

I do a Vindapoo Vin-da-loo !!  [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Mr. Scientist]

Disclaimer: I'm just speculating there, since its outside my field. 

There's the question of what exactly the singularity in a black hole is.  A lot of folks think the idea of the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity breaks down at the small scales, and that a more complete quantum gravity theory would help with that and maybe not have infinite density.  If it's a quantum object with some size, then maybe it could be ripped apart?  Also, black holes should give off energy from Hawking radiation.  The energy they give off will get ripped away from them in this scenario, so you would expect black holes to evaporate from loss of energy (and therefore mass) alone, even if they didn't get "ripped" themselves.

True. Some also speculate that there is no such thing as a singular region of spacetime seeing them as an indication that the mathematic has gone wrong somewhere.

[Ron Hughes]

The problem we have with singularities is that no one knows for sure what is going on at an event horizon or beyond. Hawking radiation is still a theory. Any discussion we have about black holes is just a discussion, we have no way of proving anything. E = MC^2 says that matter is pure energy (radiation). I think that matter gets torn into radiation at the event horizon and that radiation continues to propagate toward the center of the hole with the wavelength getting short as it does. Therefore a black hole could store an infinite amount of energy.

[Mr. Scientist]

The problem we have with singularities is that no one knows for sure what is going on at an event horizon or beyond. Hawking radiation is still a theory. Any discussion we have about black holes is just a discussion, we have no way of proving anything. E = MC^2 says that matter is pure energy (radiation). I think that matter gets torn into radiation at the event horizon and that radiation continues to propagate toward the center of the hole with the wavelength getting short as it does. Therefore a black hole could store an infinite amount of energy.

If you want to take that line of logic, then black holes are just a theory also. Now, thatt just depends. We've never seen one, but there is a high-expectancy that they exist to answer for many cosmological and quantum mechanically-drived problems.

Truth is, and i am being completely honest Hawking Radiation is a mathematical fact. If it has a temperature, then it will (by all mathematical and materialistic means) radiate energy, as do all energy-related thermodynamical systems operate. There is no if's, but's or maybe's. If it has a tempertature, it will radiate.

The only way you could have a black hole not to radiate, is either that the black hole is of the size of an electron where its curvature will not allow photons to escape or that we are to believe the ridiculous notion that black holes are completely-frozen, ridiculous, because its impossible.

[LeeE]

The rate of evaporation of a BH is dependent upon its temperature, which is inversely dependent upon its size; the smaller a BH is, the hotter it is.  Relativity too, showed us that what may seem to be intuitively ridiculous doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I think it needs to be remembered that any theory of space-time that limits it to being exclusively four-dimensional is setting that limit arbitrarily.  While it's difficult to conceive of lower and higher order space-time geometries, there's no intrinsic reason why they shouldn't exist; relationships between any number of dimensions seem to be pretty straightforward and it's not difficult to work with them.  Indeed, all of the Superstring theories require > four-dimensional space-time.

Therefore, if we accept that there is no fundamental limit to the number of dimensions of space-time, we should also accept that objects that exist within that space-time need not just be three dimensional, for in a > four-dimensional Superstring space-time environment every three-dimensional body that exists in our apparent four-dimensional space-time must have either zero-size in the extra dimensions, or that their size is 'curled up' to quantum sizes, and would seem to be of quantum density in those dimensions.

The Occam's Razor solution is that objects need not have a non-zero size in every dimension.  Personally, I think that the family of massless particles may be an indicator of objects in our four-dimensional space-time that have less than three spatial dimensions e.g. light may only be two-dimensional, and that what is at the center of a Black Hole may actually be a zero-sized point.

[neilep (OP)]

Thank ewe all for your continued contributions to this thread.  Fascinating stuff !..

[Mr. Scientist]

The rate of evaporation of a BH is dependent upon its temperature, which is inversely dependent upon its size; the smaller a BH is, the hotter it is.  Relativity too, showed us that what may seem to be intuitively ridiculous doesn't mean that it's impossible.

I think it needs to be remembered that any theory of space-time that limits it to being exclusively four-dimensional is setting that limit arbitrarily.  While it's difficult to conceive of lower and higher order space-time geometries, there's no intrinsic reason why they shouldn't exist; relationships between any number of dimensions seem to be pretty straightforward and it's not difficult to work with them.  Indeed, all of the Superstring theories require > four-dimensional space-time.

Therefore, if we accept that there is no fundamental limit to the number of dimensions of space-time, we should also accept that objects that exist within that space-time need not just be three dimensional, for in a > four-dimensional Superstring space-time environment every three-dimensional body that exists in our apparent four-dimensional space-time must have either zero-size in the extra dimensions, or that their size is 'curled up' to quantum sizes, and would seem to be of quantum density in those dimensions.

The Occam's Razor solution is that objects need not have a non-zero size in every dimension.  Personally, I think that the family of massless particles may be an indicator of objects in our four-dimensional space-time that have less than three spatial dimensions e.g. light may only be two-dimensional, and that what is at the center of a Black Hole may actually be a zero-sized point.

The level of energy on that scale is astronomically high. A black hole need to be of Planck Mass at smallest size 2x10^-8kg. The Compton Wavelength given as lambda=h/mc=2pi(h/mc) of a black hole is proportional to its Schwartzchild Radius 1 / (2M − r); very small black holes are very hot. This is because the decrease in size and magnification of density makes these little things extremely hot. A typical micro black hole would have a temperature of 10^16 K, which is 200 GeV.


An extremal black hole will have a ground state of mass that is proportional to its charge and angular momentum. This means that the black hole will either radiate particle pairs at a much slower rate, or they won’t emit the particles at all. The following equation describes the curvature of spacetime round a massive spherical body;

ds^2=-c^2(1-2GM/c^2r)dt^2+(1-2GM/c^2)^-1_dr^2+r^2d^2

The curvature produced by this weak sea of black holes i predict would sufficient to stabilize the gravitational forces needed. Black holes are predicted to form from the collapsed states of certain large stars, about several times larger than our star. They do so, because of gravitational acceleration, given by the formula;

a=(GM_ ß)/d^2=mg

Remember, a free falling object will have the force of gravity totally cancelled out as it’s that weak. We know that from Newton’s Force Equation is derived as f= ma, where this also shows an inertial system to derive the acceleration due to gravity, and thus;

g=(GM)/d^2

So the gravitational acceleration is the mass of a gravitationally warped object M, and the distance d from it. Also, instead of working out the mass of a black hole in the conventional way, you could measure it against the gravitational acceleration formula, by;

M=gd^2/G

We use the same method to work out the mass of the earth. The G is Newtons universal gravitational constant (6.7×10-11 m3/(kg sec2). We find the Earth's mass = 9.8 × (6.4×106)2 / (6.7 × 10-11) kilograms = 6.0 × 1024 kilograms. To make an accurate measure of the gravitation being produced in the hidden dimension, we would need to take the content of the proposed dark matter, which is about 25% of matter in the universe (as predicted by NASA), and spread that out in a uniformal distribution throughout the dimension, take the gravitational affects of the black holes, but we are dealing here with very small calculations for each extremal black hole. We would need to work out how many of these micro black holes would be needed, and if they represent particles, then the sea of black holes would have a finite number of particles consistent.
The gravitational acceleration, is then simply given as g=(GM)/d^2, and calculating the mass is gd^2/G.

[LeeE]

And your point is?

[Mr. Scientist]

And your point is?

I was adding a little education.

What's your buzz all about bud?

[LeeE]

Why didn't you do the education bit in your first post, instead of saying that:

The only way you could have a black hole not to radiate, is either that the black hole is of the size of an electron...

...but anyway, we both now seem to agree that smaller BHs evaporate more quickly than larger ones, which is not what your statement, quoted above, implied.

[Geezer]

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but before we all get too excited about black holes, it has yet to be proven that they actually exist.

(Retreats to underground bunker.)

[Mr. Scientist]

Disclaimer: I'm just speculating there, since its outside my field. 

There's the question of what exactly the singularity in a black hole is.  A lot of folks think the idea of the singularity is a sign that the theory of general relativity breaks down at the small scales, and that a more complete quantum gravity theory would help with that and maybe not have infinite density.  If it's a quantum object with some size, then maybe it could be ripped apart?  Also, black holes should give off energy from Hawking radiation.  The energy they give off will get ripped away from them in this scenario, so you would expect black holes to evaporate from loss of energy (and therefore mass) alone, even if they didn't get "ripped" themselves.

Well thought over !!

[yor_on]

I don't think that anything can rip apart a black hole, and ah, they must exist or Einstein was wrong. And I think he was right

Black holes are no longer a part of our universe, that's what the event horizon (EV) states. As for Hawking and that energy he expects to be produced it's created by 'virtual photons' created by the energy contained at the EV where the created pair gets 'split up'. It does not state that this contain any information from the black hole as far as I know?

All things we observe is a relation, as they say, there is needed to be two for something to happen, but when it comes to black holes the energy we see I belive to be in SpaceTime's effort to close its 'holes' and we have to differ between what's inside and outside a BH.

[Mr. Scientist]

I don't think that anything can rip apart a black hole, and ah, they must exist or Einstein was wrong. And I think he was right

Black holes are no longer a part of our universe, that's what the event horizon (EV) states. As for Hawking and that energy he expects to be produced it's created by 'virtual photons' created by the energy contained at the EV where the created pair gets 'split up'. It does not state that this contain any information from the black hole as far as I know?

All things we observe is a relation, as they say, there is needed to be two for something to happen, but when it comes to black holes the energy we see I belive to be in SpaceTime's effort to close its 'holes' and we have to differ between what's inside and outside a BH.

Well, its very good to have our own idea's and i always encourage them.

However, you do state with absolute fact that black holes cannot be ripped apart, and i get the sense you've based this on the possible-non-existence of these exotic object... and so finally getting to my point, is that you've looked at the possibilities of a black holes being ripped from a correct angle.

It exists only as a mathematical theory, one which is actually able to rip a black hole. This theory is called, the Big Rip, and was not called this name for no reason.