It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What a black hole does

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Thinking along the lines of what happens to matter after it goes into a black hole is mind boggling. However I look at this from a very simplistic point of view.

Things have a way of fixing them selves in the universe. A sun is born and then dies. A galaxy forms and then dies. All of which seam to be drawn to super massive black holes in the center of galaxies.

So what is the purpose of a black hole is the question I asked my self.

The way of the universe fixing it self seems to be the answer. If the universe was void of matter in the beginning and is trying to return to that point, then it would be logical to assume the natural way to do that is to destroy the matter that was created from the event that gave birth to the stars and matter in the original so called big bang.

A black hole is really the only way to destroy matter. Since matter theoretically can not be destroyed it needs to go to a point where it can no longer be matter and is returned to pure energy. Nominal energy that is beyond the ability to be measured. It does not matter if the original contents of the universe was pure energy, or some type of sub atomic particle, it seems that the black hole is the trash disposal unit of the universe that is attempting to reset the system to zero.

The real question is, can man avoid the universe? If we can escape the slow methodical pull into a black hole, will we be able to create more matter for which to live off of? Can we move a star or a planet out of the grips of a black hole so we can live on? Will the event that created matter in the universe be something man can reproduce to start it all over again?

These questions are valid but like every other impending disaster we usually don't worry about it until such a time that it will actually happen.




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
A black hole is really the only way to destroy matter. Since matter theoretically can not be destroyed it needs to go to a point where it can no longer be matter and is returned to pure energy.


I think you're forgetting something. Nuclear weapons split the atom into energy, with the most effect being from heavy atoms such as uranium, no?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Sure, splitting atoms is a method of artificially destroying matter. But remember it is less than a tea spoon and it is only heavy elements.

The universe only fuses atoms in nature, it can not split them. A black hole is the only way to destroy an atom on a constant on going process that does not need to be reset like a nuke does.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 



I work with black holes, they're my research area. However, I'm not sure I understand your question in assuming everything has a point. What's the point of birds you might ask? Well there isn't one!



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
The universe only fuses atoms in nature, it can not split them. A black hole is the only way to destroy an atom on a constant on going process that does not need to be reset like a nuke does.


That is not entirely true. Many scientists now believe that fission indeed can happen naturally, and one such example is in a supenova explosion of a star at certain sizes. During the collapse of the star and the intense gravitation influx many elements are compressed and are actually split during the process.



Agreed that what happens inside of the event horizon is indeed very facinating, and destructive. As matter goes deeper into a black hole, the tidal forces at play are so strong that it literally rip everything in half, and then in half again, and in half again, and so on so forth. It literally rips the atoms themselves until the purest form of energy is achieved.

Although there are still some types of energy that can escape the pull of a black hole, namely x-rays. x-ray telescopes in orbit have recently allowed scientists to be able to detect these black hole events based on their x-ray emissions.


Black holes are ery facinating beasts, especially when the physics of the singularity are being discussed.


For furthur reading on the subject I would recommend picking up a copy of Kip S. Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps : Einsteins outragous legacy"

xmad



[edit on 4-12-2007 by xmaddness]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think the natural fission that happens in stars does not destroy atoms. I think it converts them to different elements. Even in nuclear weapons fission the atoms are converted into lighter elements. I find it difficult to imagine fission being capable of resetting the universe however.

Birds, the meaning of life and what is in the special Jack sauce at jack in the box is another topic.

Does everything have a purpose? If you look at it and see how it changes things around it, and how that trickles down the line to something ultimate, then I can argue it does.

If you stop at the immediate result and only look at what it did, then you deny it has the ability to effect.

I look at the argument that in the beginning there was nothing. If this is true, then just like a glass of water evaporating and just like an body decaying things tend to go back to zero. Nothing stays the same and nothing lasts forever. The strongest materials will be destroyed eventually.

A black hole is then end of matter. It is the reset button.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Yeah, fission only splits the atom. Though some mass is converted to energy...

If you want matter destruction, look to antimatter.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Then folowing your logic a black hole turns matter into pure energy then a white hole does the oposite , it creates matter from pure energy
Can a white hole be the "creator" of galaxies and a black hole the "destroyer"?

[edit on 4-12-2007 by dracodie]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Well sir good question, and I have an "out there answer". When a black hole is formed a singularity is formed out of the matter that has collapsed. This singularity creates so much gravity that additional matter coming into the hole is moving so fast that it stops in time at some point on the way toward the singularity. This time hole in space pushes space outward like pushing in on a balloon. This time hole is what is causing the expansion of the universe just like if you stuck a balloon in some water. The water would be displaced and it would appear to increase when it is actually just expanding around the balloon.

The matter there at the event horizon exists frozen in time. So you have a shell of matter stuck in time surrounding the with some amount of matter stuck between the event horizon and the singularity. Eventually this shell (horizon) will accumulate enough matter to again cause another time stop outward from the old event horizon. This would create another event horizon.

If a black hole continues to feed it will continue to create these shells or balloons inside balloons growing larger and large and displacing more and more space necause of a larger area of zero time.

The matter that gets stuck in these zero time zones should start existing existing at the beginning of time, and at the end of time. This would create a bridge of frozen time from the beginning till the end of time when all energy is consumed at some future date, time will stop.

At this point when all time stops, all mater exists in a timeless zone with no energy. Once time stops at some point, gravity will stop. Once gravity stops all the matter in the universe will be released in a big bang. Time will start to move forward again and a new universe is born to cycle all over again.

This theory eliminates dark mater and dark energy. Matter stuck in space time is what is causing the effects scientists are measuring and calling DE and DM. Space itself is the energy or (the water) our universe lives in. Just measure or examining a spot in space will not likely make it possible for us to completely witness space or measure its true strength since space itself exists at the start of time till the end of time. We only witness and measure space at the location and moment we attempt to measure or see it. If we could see all the way back when time started and time ended we would see the full measure of the space time continuum and be able to understand gravity, space, time, matter and energy.

The reason we cannot solve the puzzle is because we can only exists and measure the present except for viewing light from the past. This is because that light particle has existed and traveled since it was created.

Back to the black hole. This sphere withen sphere theory of black holes and black hole stopped time zones, also explain the galaxy formations that stick together when there is not enough gravity to hold it all together. The ripples in space time left behind by the black hole as it moves through the universe also
extends the distance, and strength of gravity spaced out in wave patterns formed by the sphere within sphere geometry of the stopped time of the black holes. The gravity and time waves continue out leaving ripples in space. This is why galaxies are spiral or round. Of course colliding galaxies can cause a real mess of the roundness and spiral formation since you are pulling space time gravity ripples from different galaxies across each other.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 



Indeed that is quite an "out there" theory, although I do agree time will do some very "nifty" things inside a super massive black hole.

As gravity increases, so does the speed of time, relative to an outside observer. As the matter enters the event horizon of the super massive black hole, its time will actually continue relative to itself as normal. It will continue to spiral further and further towards the singularity until it reach that point. To an outside observer, if it were able to actually see past the event horizon, would see the particles and energy actually come to a stand still. This occurs because the gravity is causing the time inside the horizon to slow down, relative to the outside observer. On the inside of the event horizon however, time is going normal, but by the time the particle actually gets to the center of the singularity, which to itself took only nanoseconds, for example, the outside observers time would have gone by millions, possibly billions of years (depending on how far the gravity changes are between the two).

Time inside the black holes event horizon seems to stand still to an outside observer.

Now let us say for example that the gravity of the black hole is so great, and the time dilation is so intense, that the time it takes for the particles to reach the singularity starts to approach infinite to an outside observer. In this case, can the possibility exist that the particle could take an infinite amount of time to actually reach the center, if at all? Has the particle inside the horizon actually been forced into another dimension because in the future the black hole is reversed, to a white hole? Or does the energy "leak" into another so called space-time brane? Are there people on a forum in another brane dimension discussing what the white holes they have in thier universe are, and where all the matter being ejected from them is coming from? Are they the ultimate recipients of these matter from the black holes in our dimension?

Is the traversal of the enormous gravities across the brane dimension what is truly holding together the galaxies in their locked spiraling? It has been postulated that gravity can in fact go across branes, whereas electric force between atoms nucleus and their electrons are confined to their own brane, and is why we see electrons falling into place on the quantum side of things? Can gravity become the strongest force, stronger than the other forces on a grand scale?


Branes are some very interesting new models to play with when looking at some of these "larger than life" ideas.



-xmad

[edit on 4-12-2007 by xmaddness]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by xmaddness]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Black holes are funny: what they are and what they do depends on what type of formalism you use to describe them.

The notion of a black hole as a singularity really only makes sense in the context of the classical mechanics of relativity (defined in terms of locality, causality, and determinism). Because quantum mechanics currently lacks a coherent account of gravity, there are not too many answers here.

Black holes can be described in terms of Claude Shannon's work relating thermodynamics to information content. For example, it appears that the entropic content of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon, rather than the mass of the black hole. Because information (energy) interacts as it falls into a black hole, and is emitted as Hawking radiation, properly formatted information sent into a black hole (intital conditions) can be used to treat black holes as very fast computers.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Black holes are theoretical, other models offer a more believable theory and similar effects can be replicated in the lab. Sorry to be negative to the OP, but black holes deserve the same skepticism that other taboo subjects here on ATS attract and yet many accept it at face value without any evidence.

A few links for consideration.
Mysterious quasar cast doubt on black holes
The black hole, big bang and modern physics
Black hole tear logic apart
Mysterious ring of stars

Lots more where that came from. The second link has links to some of the original papers that gave rise to the theory, so you can decide for yourself.

Black holes always make me think of that quote from Red Dwarf.

"Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?"


But please don't mind me, carry on.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by squiz]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
i have recently been interested in black holes and have done some research. i am boggled by the theory of the "white hole"



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by timelike
reply to post by robwerden
 



I work with black holes, they're my research area. However, I'm not sure I understand your question in assuming everything has a point. What's the point of birds you might ask? Well there isn't one!




Birds have a point, they have their place and role in our ecosystem like every other creature.

I don't understand how people say that Time somehow stops when talking about black holes. What do you exactly mean? That the chain of events stops and everything stands still? In my mind Time (past present future) is a block that already exists but we cannot perceive.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
...just watched this Discovery Channel video on G video. It's about 45 minutes long, pretty interesting watch for those w/ the time. Specialists were not able to calculate how large black holes could be; video shows some computer modeling, expert interviews.

"Supermassive Black Holes"


A supermassive black hole is a black hole with a mass in the range of hundreds of thousands to tens of billions of solar masses. It is currently thought that most, if not all galaxies, including the Milky Way, contain a supermassive black hole at their galactic center.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I don't understand how people say that Time somehow stops when talking about black holes. What do you exactly mean? That the chain of events stops and everything stands still? In my mind Time (past present future) is a block that already exists but we cannot perceive.

It's part of relativity, I'm not fresh on most of it... I hope to remedy that soon, but until then, perhaps rob can explain?

I love physics.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


As always, it is interesting to find a different viewpoint on a subject. While I have only had time to skim through the links, there seems to be a valid argument for them.

I hope to see this discussed in some detail here.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
OK, when talking about time slowing down we have to be a bit careful by what we mean.

There are two types of time used in General Relativity, there's the time experienced by you as you travel towards the black hole , that's called Proper time. Then there's the time of the spacetime and of us the observers watching you fall into the black hole- that's called coordinate time. It is coordinate time that slows down to zero as you approach the black hole,so as we watch you get close to the event horizon, the light coming from your spaceship takes longer and longer to reach us and becomes more and more redshifted until you appear to stay on the horizon forever.

However, for you, you have proper time and this remains largley unaffected as you go into the black hole. You pass through the event horizon and hit the singularity and note nothing unusual. Hope this helps!



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Black holes are theoretical, other models offer a more believable theory and similar effects can be replicated in the lab. Sorry to be negative to the OP, but black holes deserve the same skepticism that other taboo subjects here on ATS attract and yet many accept it at face value without any evidence.


Wow...interesting. I've not heard this before. While I've looked at them, I've not yet thoroughly read the websites you gave in your post but at the moment I happen to be reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds.

On page 122 he states:

"...astronomers have identified several hundred black holes in outer space via the Hubble space telescope, the Chandra X-ray space telescope...and the Very Large Array Radio Telescope...."

Thus, it seems that someone must be incorrect.

Now, I do not hold an advanced degree in physics. I'm just an interested civilian who has read a fair number of books about physics written for the general public.

Also, I tend to be somewhat old fashioned in that I tend to hold books in higher regard than what I find on the internet.

That said, this should prove to be an interesting read...provided the mathematics doesn't go beyond my ken.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


OK, let me have a go at this one, but if I rant and don't make sense, someone please clarify.

The universe is supposed to exist as an interwoven fabric of space and time. When describing something's position in the universe we have to refer to both where and when. And, everything's position in the universe can only be described relative to something else. The best way that I understood this was with the image of a child bouncing a ball on a train. To the person on the train, the ball is only going up and down, but to the perspective of someone standing on a railway platform the ball would look like it was bouncing over long arches.

So, is that ball only bouncing the 3 feet off of the ground that the kid on the train sees, or is it bouncing the 20ft arch that the platform guy sees? The answer would be both.

Now to the person on the train, the ball bounced 3 feet in one second. To the person on the platform the ball bounced 20 feet in 1 second. So, by that logic, the ball was moving slower when viewed from the train than it was when viewed from the platform.

Now according to relativity, the effects of gravity can be mimicked by increase of speed. Lets say you were on long elevator. As that elevator rises, you feel heavier. The same way you get pushed back in your car when it speeds up after being stopped. As the elevator speeds up, you get heavier. AS more gravity is applied to something, it gets heavier.

So, the faster the observer is going, and the more effect gravity has on the observer is the same, and the less the rate of change from the perspective of the observer.

Since a black hole is just a massive gravitational pit, anything inside it's gravitational field would have the same rate of change as something travelling really really fast (almost to the speed of light). So it appears to the observer outside of the field that the person inside the field has slowed down to a halt.

Make sense?

This has actually been proven using syncronized clocks on the Earth and in orbit. It's pretty cool if you ask me.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join