Blackholes and Darkmatter

I am confussed and very curious. In this discussion, what is your guys definition of a worm hole and how can one be "near" a black hole as opposed to being in the center?

I understand the reasoning that a black hole bends spacetime and ultimately folds over on itself and this is why you cannot see into a black hole (as well as the fact that due to the gravitational forces involved nothing can possibly have the escape speed to actually escape).

My assumption is that once an object crosses the event horizon and travels through spagettification it will eventually arrive at the singularity. What is the explanation for how something can resolve out of the singularity?

Edited to add: P.S. It is also my understanding that historically something that ends in a singularity generally indicates a severe problem with the theory itself.

[edit on 12/9/2004 by Yosemite Sam]

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam
I am confussed and very curious. In this discussion, what is your guys definition of a worm hole and how can one be "near" a black hole as opposed to being in the center?

I understand the reasoning that a black hole bends spacetime and ultimately folds over on itself and this is why you cannot see into a black hole (as well as the fact that due to the gravitational forces involved nothing can possibly have the escape speed to actually escape).

My assumption is that once an object crosses the event horizon and travels through spagettification it will eventually arrive at the singularity. What is the explanation for how something can resolve out of the singularity?

Even your assumption can't be taken for granted. Nothing is known about what exactly happens after matter passes the event horizon.

Tidal effects and space-time curvature are too great pass the event horizon for their to be any accurate speculation on what the effects on matter will be.

Agreed Nox. Probably a bad use of the word assumption. It should more accurately say "current understanding".

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam
My assumption is that once an object crosses the event horizon and travels through spagettification it will eventually arrive at the singularity. What is the explanation for how something can resolve out of the singularity?

Edited to add: P.S. It is also my understanding that historically something that ends in a singularity generally indicates a severe problem with the theory itself.

technically, once you cross the event horizon, you are at the singularity. this doesnt make sense at all, since its very far from it. as far as anyone or anything is concerned, however, the instant you cross the event horizon you arrive at the singularity. we cant determine otherwise. in fact, we never actually see you cross the event horizon, you just kind of seem to stay there. (this is how the event horizon grows further away from the center - it gros by engulfing particles outside of it. long story)

�This is how the event horizon grows further away from the center - it grows by engulfing particles outside of it. Long story��

No need to explain Amorymeltzer, as this makes perfect sense to me.

I am mostly interested in whether or not anyone has conjecture, hypothosi(e)s, thoery, or guesses around the other side of singularity.

To me, dark matter has nothing to do with this discussion, however anti-matter is quite intreging...

P.S. and oh by the way to whomever said it, current theory/understanding says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So, in my opinion nothing entering a black hole is annaliated, but rather transfomed.

Originally posted by Yosemite Sam
I am mostly interested in whether or not anyone has conjecture, hypothosi(e)s, thoery, or guesses around the other side of singularity.

hmm? i totally missed that. the other side?

and oh by the way to whomever said it, current theory/understanding says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So, in my opinion nothing entering a black hole is annaliated, but rather transfomed.

yeah, but not transformed, just... dense.

I have read this somewhere, I'm not sure if it's true, but it makes sense...

A black hole isn't really a "hole". It's actually a sphere, of exponentially increasing gravity culminating in the center where it hits infinite mass (I'm not a physisist, so I hope I'm getting these terms right. lol) So basically, if you get sucked into a black hole, assuming you could survive long enough to make it to the center (which you wouldn't. lol) you'd basically be smashed together with everything else that ever got pulled in there into one infinately small piece of well...space garbage.

That's actually what most amateur physicists would think.

Because that is essentially what black holes are when you skim the surface.

Boundless mass, leading to boundless gravity, overcoming the Exclusion Principle just to squeeze into an impossibly tiny area.

However, the more you look into it, the less you admit to knowing.

It's all speculation past the event horizon.

There's a reason why Hawking (world's premier genius on the topic of black holes) relates the size of a black hole's event horizon to overall entropy/chaos. We know nothing.

True, obviously it's all theory...no one has actually travelled into a black hole. But I believe that is the most widely accepted theory.

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
True, obviously it's all theory...no one has actually travelled into a black hole. But I believe that is the most widely accepted theory.

I agree, it's the most widely accepted idea.

I think that seeing as the universe goes on forever in all directions at the same speed (???) then their must be a center. The center is a whitehole, while blackholes suck anything in, the whitehole pours it back out with a bit more (creating particles inside, don't ask).

What I am saying is that every black hole is linked to the center of the universe, and nothing can travel though a blackhole because the thing must be compacted and then sent through millions of light years to come out of the other side (whitehole).

This means that the universe is expanding at a steady rate in all directions, I don't think a specific area could spurt and expand further than others could it?


But why can't we see past what we see now? I think we can't see past what we see now because their is nothing to see. In the new regions of space their are no stars, so we don't know what is out their at all...

Ok, I saw this site a long time ago never really visited it much but I was bored today and I read this post up above and I just had to register to set some things right. I'm in my second year of school and I'm studying astronomy not that gives me any credibility but I thought I'd say it anyway. I've read about everything on black holes and I'm very familar with M-theory which is the more advanced version of superstrings.

First off black holes. When matter approaches the event horizon it is converted to energy from the gravitational forces which accelorate it to the speed of light this is proven because we have witnessed gamma rays being emitted out of a black hole. So it's not made of anti-matter. As far as we know there are no large sources of anti-matter in the universe we can make them by slamming two particles at near the speed of light together but it's expensive and requires much energy and they are destroyed when they come into contact with normal matter so black holes not made of anit-matter.

Second dark matter. Dark matter is cold baryonic matter which does not reflect light as normal baryonic matter does also there is exotic dark matter which we know very little about but one form is neutrinos(not going to describe what they are). Exotic dark matter leading canidate is supersymetric particles look it up if you care to.

There's a nice debate if whether matter can travel faster than the speed of light but I'm not up to standard on that so just google it.

Finally I'll do something nice and it'll be up to everyone else to decide for themselves if they buy it. M-theory states that the universe is made up of 11 dimensions all but the normal 4 dimensions are rolled up into very tiny spaces like a dot in the cosmos but just maybe these are your theorized different universes.

Originally posted by Nexus
I think that seeing as the universe goes on forever in all directions at the same speed (???) then their must be a center. The center is a whitehole, while blackholes suck anything in, the whitehole pours it back out with a bit more (creating particles inside, don't ask).

....

But why can't we see past what we see now? I think we can't see past what we see now because their is nothing to see. In the new regions of space their are no stars, so we don't know what is out their at all...

Ok Nexus decent theory; however, there's a thing called the cosmic background radition which was created 400,000 years after the big bang during recombination when electrons were able to setle down with nuclei. This tells us how old the universe is, how it's shaped, the distrubution of matter throughout the galaxy, and other things. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and it's flat--in 4 dimensions. We can't see past what we see now because there is a huge sheet of light there that we can't penetrate.

But afterall you have to remember this is science, which is just disproving theories and creating better theories. My last two posts are just the leading theories right now maybe some day they'll be proven wrong.

All we know is nothing.

there is no center.

1. every point in the universe sees every other point in the universe traveling away from it, so all points have an equally valid claim to being the center.
2. think of the universe like a balloon. we exist on the surface. at t=0, its a point, everything is the center. after that, it expands. the entire surface moves away, and the 'center' is a point inside the balloon, where we dont exist. there is no center.

neutrinos arent that hard, bomber. its the other stuff thats hard, the 400 particles that need to exist for string theory to be right.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
there is no center.

1. every point in the universe sees every other point in the universe traveling away from it, so all points have an equally valid claim to being the center.
2. think of the universe like a balloon. we exist on the surface. at t=0, its a point, everything is the center. after that, it expands. the entire surface moves away, and the 'center' is a point inside the balloon, where we dont exist. there is no center.

neutrinos arent that hard, bomber. its the other stuff thats hard, the 400 particles that need to exist for string theory to be right.

Agreed Amory, on all of the above. Sorry, I've been away for awhile and just getting back to this.

I have several questions for Bomber, but will wait until tomorrow to ask so I can mull some of them over first.

What is the singularity in the black hole made out of?

The singularity must be some form of matter?

Is it some type of new element all compressed together into a dense super powerfull gravity ball of ....???

Does density increase gravity? or is it mass? or both?

When they say one black hole is bigger than another is the singularity also bigger or is it just the size of a black holes gravity well that determines its size/classification?

It would appear to me that most of the matter that a black hole pulls toward its center is torn to shreads and emitted as Xray,light etc.. before it ever comes into contact with the singularity. Is this true and how could a black hole grow if it acts in this manner?

You know, black holes really are no anti-matter in any way. They would be classified as dark matter, but there is far from "nothing" there.

force due to gravity = (gravitational constant) (Mass1) (Mass2)/Radius^2

acceleration due to gravity = Force due to gravity/Mass2

a black hole is simply when that acceleration is faster than the acceleration of light, therefore light can not escape it

I don't remember the exact number, but as a physics problem we once calculated what it would take for the radius of the earth would have to be to be a black hole is. I believe if the mass of the earth was condenced to having a radius of about 6 cm it would be a black hole.

easy enough?

Originally posted by Nox
Nothing is faster than light.

For an object to "travel faster than light" it would need to break causality.

People said nothing could travel faster than the speed of sound back before it had been done.

I mean 50 years ago if you told people that we were going to send a robot to Mars that would send us back information about the planets surface and prove that life is possible on that planet, the people back than would have called you a crazy loon and locked you up in a loony bin for electroshock treatment.

I appreciate you studying physics, it's a great subject. I think, though, in order to make alot of these assumptions, you need to take classes rather than read a book. You'll understand some things much better.