The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Are black holes really just gigantic stars?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Are black holes really just gigantic stars?

  • 3 Replies
  • 2755 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 939
  • Activity:
    1%
  • Thanked: 32 times
Are black holes really just gigantic stars?
« on: 10/06/2016 07:08:29 »
Are black holes just gigantic stars that gravity will not allow us to see?
Logged
 



Offline PmbPhy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3902
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 126 times
Re: Are black holes really just gigantic stars?
« Reply #1 on: 10/06/2016 07:16:51 »
Quote from: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey
Are black holes just gigantic stars that gravity will not allow us to see?
Some are and some aren't. A black hole need not have a mass as great as a star although theory suggests that some black holes are burned out stars. However micro black holes have a mass much smaller than a star. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole#Minimum_mass_of_a_black_hole

Notice what it says
Quote
Minimum mass of a black hole
-----------------------------------------------------
In principle, a black hole can have any mass equal to or above the Planck mass (about 22 micrograms).
Logged
 

Offline chris

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8061
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 306 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Are black holes really just gigantic stars?
« Reply #2 on: 10/06/2016 08:16:57 »
Interesting idea. I'd not looked at it like that before.
Logged
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 534
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Are black holes really just gigantic stars?
« Reply #3 on: 10/06/2016 08:17:36 »
Note that micro black holes are "hypothetical tiny black holes". There is no evidence that they exist. However there is good evidence that stellar and supermassive black holes exist. 

Quote from: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 10/06/2016 07:08:29
Are black holes just gigantic stars that gravity will not allow us to see?
No. A black hole is very different to a star. Its exact nature is the subject of some debate, but what isn't, is the infinite gravitational time dilation. Any process occurring within or at the event horizon is subject to infinite time dilation and therefore does not occur. This includes the upward motion of a vertical light beam. Consider this scenario:

You're standing on a gedanken planet holding a laser pointer straight up. The light doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. It goes straight up. Now I wave my magic wand and make the planet denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive. The light still doesn't curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. I make the planet even denser and more massive, and take it to the limit such that it's a black hole. At no point did the light ever curve round, or slow down as it ascends, or fall down. So why doesn't the light get out?

The answer is that the "coordinate" speed of light at the event horizon is zero. However IMHO it's simpler to take a tip from Einstein (see the second paragraph here) and say the speed of light is zero. A place where light doesn't move is a rather strange place. There's no motion so there's no heat, and there's no way to measure distance or time. And because light doesn't move and nothing goes faster than light, nothing moves, so I can't see how there can even be any gravity. All this reminds me of the "void in the fabric of space and time" you can see mentioned in the Wikipedia gravastar article. It also makes me wonder if the early universe was once like this. Not a point singularity, but a "hole in space". Imagine a blue-grey balloon, then imagine a hole in it, then check out this CCASA depiction of a black hole by cosmologist Alain Riazuelo: 



It's on the Wikipedia black hole page. It looks like a hole in space, but this hole in nothing isn't nothing, it's something. One day we might learn that this is raw energy in its most fundamental form.

Or something else!
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.36 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.