Black Hole wishful thoughts and the pictures of it...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KrzYma

so infinite density requires infinite mass.

One more time; division by zero is not infinite, it is undefined.

you say it now... but in the math if you divide and approach 0 it goes to infinity... till you reach 0 !!
and than science says, the physics are broken...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KrzYma

so infinite density requires infinite mass.

One more time; division by zero is not infinite, it is undefined.

That means we just don't know.

I think a new mathematics needs to be thought up for this.

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Phage

undefined.

but this means ...not imaginable... means you can not make a picture of it

It means something quite specific. It means that mathematics does not allow it.

But as we know, mathematics are not the same thing as reality. They are a construct created by humans to represent reality. When it comes to situations of extreme gravity such concepts break down.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Phage

undefined.

but this means ...not imaginable... means you can not make a picture of it

It means something quite specific. It means that mathematics does not allow it.

But as we know, mathematics are not the same thing as reality. They are a construct created by humans to represent reality. When it comes to situations of extreme gravity such concepts break down.

OK... listen..

we know there are charged particles in the world, electrons and protons
+1 and -1 is 2 density with charge 0, if they close enough like neutrons...

EM field is a field that adds all that "density of a charge" into the field..
the field density is responsible for the propagation speed of the radiation, YES ! don't tell me it's not
speed of light if dependent on the density of that field and that is why light/radiation is bend by mass.. ( a lot of mass, charges )

now... if the field is more and more dense, the propagation speed is slower and slower..
so there is a point where the radiation comes to a stop, if the density is high enough.

there is no infinitely small point in it like the Einstein calculations say, but it is a volume of size bigger then 0 as you need a lot of charge that comes from electrons and protons to create this density to be big enough so it "brings the radiation to stop"... and all the radiation "around it" to bend around it...

the so called Black Holes is not a result of gravity but of the EM field density !

a reply to: KrzYma

You are trying to pick yourself up by your bootstraps, mathematically.

Phage is correct and you are just not "getting it".

Einstein was correct as well, in this instance.

Our current form of mathematics does not adequately describe certain gravity phenomena because it is beyond the ability of the language to do so.

AS far as where our current mathematical understanding lies in the instance of black holes, I do have high hopes that better formulas can be found and explored in quantum field theory.

We're getting there.

a reply to: Lumenari

you don't need better math, you need better understanding what you are calculating

no division by 0 no singularity...

I have explained the black hole physics one post above and edited the main post.

read again...

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Lumenari

you don't need better math, you need better understanding what you are calculating

no division by 0 no singularity...

I have explained the black hole physics one post above and edited the main post.

read again...

~sigh~

You have already shown in this thread that you do not understand the difference between mass and density.

You are either ignoring or ignorant of the fact that we have already mathematically proven in quantum physics that a particle, under certain circumstances (say, extreme gravity) can be in more than one state simultaneously.

You have no understanding whatsoever of QFT.

I'm taking a hint from Phage and leaving now.

a reply to: KrzYma

The speed of light is not dependent upon the density of a field or gravity.

a reply to: Phage

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

How can a singularity have a radius of zero?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KrzYma

The speed of light is not dependent upon the density of a field or gravity.

OK... so you say the light do not bend on its path while propagating because of gravity ??
no gravitational lensing ??
but this is the main reason you think black holes exist !!
there is a mass that influences the light so it can not escape !!
the mass is so big even light can not escape ?? ...well..propagate so it comes away...

are you stupid ?

how can you say the speed of light is not dependent on gravity if gravity of a black hole keeps the light from escaping it ??

so tell me... how is it that light/EM radiation is bend by a mass and how a black hole keeps the light inside the event horizon if it's not dependent on the field or gravity ??
BTW: gravity is the field density...

a reply to: Lumenari

You have already shown in this thread that you do not understand the difference between mass and density.

did I ?? where ?

so.. what is the difference between mass and density ??

listen.. nescience thing...
density is a derivation from something first.

ungraspable... right ??

a reply to: KrzYma

black hole is a mathematical construct and nothing else...

No more than the atoms in your body are a mathematical construct and nothing else. Mathematics is a language that describes physical phenomenon. You might as well say the sky is an English construct and nothing else because it is called "blue" in English.

so... if a black hole has a singularity inside of it, that is of infinite density, means of infinite mass, we do not exist

As Phage and Lunenari have tried to explain to you, density and mass are related by volume. Density = Mass/Volume. Therefore, it does not follow that an infinite density would equal infinite mass. Infinite density is not even possible outside theoretical constructs anyway, since by definition it would require that the volume is zero, which is a nonsensical and undefined equation. The limit of the density of a certain amount of mass would approach infinity as the volume approached zero, but at zero the function does not exist... it is undefined.

density comes from mass

No. Density is a measure of mass per volume.

and mass is gravity as the gravity force is the result of mass, at least it's what the main stream science is telling us.

Not exactly. Mass is that which has gravity; gravity is a product of mass. They are not the same.

F = GMm/r2

That equation is proof that mass does not equal gravity. If it did, the equation would be M=kg, k being a constant.

Mass produces an attractive force on other mass inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Force is the effect on the masses which cause them to experience an acceleration (or second derivative with respect to time of change in position). Force may be induced by gravity or through other means.

enough density in the EM will prevent light to escape from it, sure...

EM radiation is not mass; it is energy. Therefore the density of an EM field is energy divided by volume, and not mass divided by volume, two entirely different things. Energy is not mass, as energy apparently does not exhibit a gravitational field like mass does.

E=mc^2 does not state that mass and energy are the same thing... it says that mass contains a set amount of energy.

the speed of EM radiation is dependent on the density of the EM field, sure..

No. That is simply wrong.

but there is no such thing as a singularity, no infinite density no Einstein black hole mathematical construct...

While you are correct that there can exist no actual singularity in the sense of a zero-volume point containing a large amount of mass, it does not follow that there can be no mathematical construct. We use mathematical constructs every minute of every hour of every day. They exist to allow us to form insights on phenomena we may not yet fully understand.

Have you ever seen the graphic of the sun's gravitation on the earth's orbit? It typically shows this 2D grid aligned with the earth's orbit, bending downward as it approaches the sun. Earth is then portrayed as spinning around the sun at the edge of that depression in the gravitational field, its momentum preventing it from sinking deeper into the depression. That describes how the orbit works pretty well, but there is no gravity pulling the planet down into the depression in space. It is a mathematical construct, not a complete description. That fact does not mean the earth does not orbit around the sun.

In essence, you are trying to use mathematical constructs to prove that something cannot exist because it has properties that are described to some degree by a mathematical construct. That's sort of like saying the sky is not blue because the sky is air and air is not blue (the color is due to variations in radiation scattering due to frequency and not the color of air, btw).

TheRedneck

a reply to: KrzYma

OK... so you say the light do not bend on its path while propagating because of gravity ??

I did not say that.

how can you say the speed of light is not dependent on gravity if gravity of a black hole keeps the light from escaping it ??

Gravity does not alter the speed of light.

how is it that light/EM radiation is bend by a mass and how a black hole keeps the light inside the event horizon if it's not dependent on the field or gravity ??

Light is not bent by mass. Spacetime is. One way to look at it is that, within the event horizon, light is trapped in an orbit around the singularity.

BTW: gravity is the field density...

More or less. In the Newtonian view.

Phage is correct, we know the mass of the black hole at the center of M87, which allows us to calculate how large the event horizon should be. In truth I've always been very skeptical of the idea that real singularities can exist in reality, however it appears that the black shadow seen in the picture of M87 is evidence of light being unable to escape the gravitational pull of the black hole. In some sense it is correct to say a black hole has infinite density, but I think Phage is probably more correct to say it's undefined. My main question at this point would be, does a black hole need to cause a singularity in space-time (that typical funnel shape with a sharp point at the bottom) or would we still see the same type of shadow for a black hole which contained an immense amount of mass in a small but non-zero volume?

The problem is indeed not with black holes but with their mathematical description or the attempts thereof.

The singularity thing for example is a claim without any experimental proof. We don't observe a singularity, and as far as our models work , we never will. So we probably should not claim that there is one.

The black hole is a rather extreme object. So the question becomes how far things like mass, volume, density apply to it.

Imho the event horizon is as far as our current physics works. Anything beyond is pure speculation.

And assuming the event horizon as the surface of a black hole, we can actually calculate a finite density.

The divide by 0 ordeal is simple
There is no case in mathematics where it would be used
0 x any number = 0 .
Any number divided by 0 would be the infinite range of integers
Thus , on a computer system a 2/0 would send the system into an infinite loop and overflow the stack.

There exists compact stellar objects already, white dwarfs and neutron stars which are held up by quantum mechanical degeneracy pressure.

White dwarfs held up by electron degeneracy, and neutron stars, neutron degeneracy.

Blackholes are enigmatic objects in that the theorized even horizon prevents us seeing what is inside it. A singularity has a nice ring to it, we don't know what goes on inside a blackhole, so, many choose to state that it is a singularity, or a point of zero volume.

While it is obvious speculation as we cannot see into a blackhole and get information across the event horizon, there could easily exist a state of matter beyond what we understand as predicted by QM or even the standard model of particle physics. It could for example be a dense quark gluon plasma. It would easily mean then that the blackhole doesn't have zero volume at all.

There is also the neutron star merger that created a blackhole as observed by ligo and a multitude of other instruments. What is appeared to show was a time lag between the event occurring gravitationally and seeing other things such as light, xrays, gamma rays etc. I think the lag is 9 seconds (I recall it from a conference talk) Anyway back then the question came up... what does that 9 seconds mean?

The speaker said... (to paraphrase) "well it could mean that the configuration of the object is that it is spinning so rapidly that its angular momentum allowed it to stay above critical mass for a blackhole to form. It then took 9 seconds to loose angular momentum and finally collapse. OR it just took 9 seconds for the object to clear debris and the light to get out... we dont really have more than speculation at this time."

While speculation once more it does open the question... is it really a single point? or an actual object? We might never know.

Density = mass / volume.

Singularity has zero volume (regardless of mass), so the resulting density is infinite (or undefined like Phage said, although how do you explain what "undefined" means?)

Or it might be more correct that the singularity radius approaches zero, and the density approaches infinity.

Do a thought experiment:

Divide a number by a divisor that's less than 1 but greater than 0, for example 0.5. Note the result.
Now halve the divisor, and divide the same number again, noting the result.
Keep halving the divisor.

You will see that, as the divisor approaches 0, the result approaches infinity.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In the end all you are saying is that you know that you do not know.

Why in these forms of science is it so necessary for utter rubbish theories are presented as fact, oh wait this is Earth where it somehow is the LAW.

You and Phage both actually explained nothing, with nothing and used math formulas and speculation while telling others that you cannot use mathematics and formulas.

It is most definitely time to rid ourselves of these obviously useless fields of science and how they are forced to use certain stiff and rigged ways of thinking...we are going NOWHERE and will find out NO THING until we realize what a joke is being played.

a reply to: KrzYma

Maybe we screwed ourselves...

Maybe the black hole didn't 'Exist Until We Measured It'

This means as you said...

so... if a black hole has a singularity inside of it, that is of infinite density, means of infinite mass, we do not exist

Welp... We went and dun it this time. It's only a matter of light years.