Difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole


by Dave Hooley
Tags: black, difference, gravity, hole
Dave Hooley
Dave Hooley is offline
#1
Feb5-04, 11:11 PM
P: 1
Iím looking for the difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole, a Gravity Well (collapsed star) suggest that there is a bottom or end to it where there is a solid bottom or middle, and a Black Hole (unknown entity) suggest that there is no end only a constant ebb and flow with in the sphere where there is no solidís and time maybe distorted, fore this is a human measurement and space maybe folded. I am trying to think dimensionally about this?
Thanks
Dave
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
SensaBubble: It's a bubble, but not as we know it (w/ video)
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Microbes provide insights into evolution of human language
Tail
Tail is offline
#2
Feb10-04, 03:49 PM
P: 197
Hmm... are you saying a black hole is not a collapsed star? What is it then?
GRQC
GRQC is offline
#3
Feb10-04, 04:37 PM
P: 176
Originally posted by Dave Hooley
I?m looking for the difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole, a Gravity Well (collapsed star) suggest that there is a bottom or end to it where there is a solid bottom or middle, and a Black Hole (unknown entity) suggest that there is no end only a constant ebb and flow with in the sphere where there is no solid?s and time maybe distorted, fore this is a human measurement and space maybe folded. I am trying to think dimensionally about this?
Thanks
Dave
I don't think you'll ever find reference to a "gravity well" in any GR textbook or journal. It's a popular science term (promoted by Star Trek, among other sci-fi sources).

My take on 'gravity well' is that it's a way to describe the embedding diagram (i.e. the "sunken sheet") of a spherical gravitational source (star, planet, etc...). The bottom of this "well" is smooth and flat.

A black hole is a very special type of such a diagram, in which the center is a singularity (pointy).

pmb_phy
pmb_phy is offline
#4
Feb10-04, 05:40 PM
P: 2,955

Difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole


Originally posted by Dave Hooley
Iím looking for the difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole, a Gravity Well (collapsed star) suggest that there is a bottom or end to it where there is a solid bottom or middle, and a Black Hole (unknown entity) suggest that there is no end only a constant ebb and flow with in the sphere where there is no solidís and time maybe distorted, fore this is a human measurement and space maybe folded. I am trying to think dimensionally about this?
Thanks
Dave
The term gravity well refers to the potential energy function near a gravitating body. Near a black hole it just happens to be very strong.

The earth has a gravity well proportional to 1/r which extends from infinity to the surface of the Earth. Then it changes from a 1/r potential to a linear potential becoming zero at the center of the Earth.
pmb_phy
pmb_phy is offline
#5
Feb10-04, 05:42 PM
P: 2,955
Originally posted by Tail
Hmm... are you saying a black hole is not a collapsed star? What is it then?
Some black holes are the result of a single star collapsing. Some aren't. E.g. supermassive black holes such as those at the center of galaxies are not the result of a single star collapsing. Mini/micro Black holes are also not the result of a star collapsing
Phobos
Phobos is offline
#6
Feb11-04, 08:58 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,018
Welcome to Physics Forums, Dave.

I agree with the others on this. A "gravity well" is a non-technical term used to describe the gravitational field around an astronomical object (moon, planet, star). I mostly recall hearing that term in sci-fi (excuse me, "SF") stories with spaceships navigating their way around the universe. A black hole is a singularity, which like any other mass, has a gravitational field around it...a deep gravity well with a point of no return.
Tail
Tail is offline
#7
Feb18-04, 04:57 PM
P: 197
Originally posted by pmb_phy
Some black holes are the result of a single star collapsing. Some aren't. E.g. supermassive black holes such as those at the center of galaxies are not the result of a single star collapsing. Mini/micro Black holes are also not the result of a star collapsing
I might be wrong, but I do think that at least most, if not all, black holes form due to a star collapsing (except for primordial black holes perhaps).
mccizmt2
mccizmt2 is offline
#8
Feb24-04, 03:21 PM
P: 5
Gravity well is a phrase coined by some jumped up hippy in the science fiction world.

A black hole is a consequence of the Schwarzschild metric. In GR the Schwarzschild metric is a solution to the Einstein equation. Where R=2GM a black hole occurs. It has this name as one cannot observe further than the event horizon.
Nice coder
Nice coder is offline
#9
Apr7-04, 07:30 AM
P: 60
Black holes are formed by anything massive enough to stop light from radiating from escaping.

Two neutron stars coliding
Two other black holes
Large star goes nova
Thats all i can think of now
MAYUKH
MAYUKH is offline
#10
Apr8-04, 01:02 AM
P: 1
Why The Black Wholes Are Not So Black?
Phobos
Phobos is offline
#11
Apr8-04, 02:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,018
Quote Quote by Nice coder
Large star goes nova
nitpick...
"supernova", not "nova"

supernova = large star that explodes during its end phase....the remaining core collapses into a neutron star or a black hole

nova = sudden brightening of a star (usually caused by accreting material from a companion star)
Phobos
Phobos is offline
#12
Apr8-04, 02:14 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,018
Quote Quote by MAYUKH
Why The Black Wholes Are Not So Black?
Welcome to Physics Forums, MAYUKH!

"Black" means that it emits no radiation (visible light, heat, whatever).

Black holes are not 100% black because they do emit a small amount of radiation due to a strange feature of virtual particles (see "Hawking Radiation").
Tail
Tail is offline
#13
Apr12-04, 07:04 PM
P: 197
Hmm... I thought the point was they DON'T emit it? A black hole loses mass, but never emits any... that's the good part.
AntiMagicMan
AntiMagicMan is offline
#14
Apr17-04, 05:43 PM
P: 36
Oh no they do emit mass. Consider a pair of particles on "borrowed time" being created around a black hole, one forms inside the event horizon, the other outside. One can escape and become "real" the other falls into the hole and the black hole loses energy and we see the other particle being emitted.
Kurdt
Kurdt is offline
#15
Apr18-04, 06:50 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,975
Hawking radiation of a black hole is a rather slow process and for most is insignificant but never the less present.
Tail
Tail is offline
#16
Apr19-04, 08:50 AM
P: 197
Well, nothing goes OUT of the black hole, it's impossible, just particles with negative energy go in. Or so I understand it.
Kurdt
Kurdt is offline
#17
Apr19-04, 01:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,975
First of all there are no particles with negative energy and secondly the Hawking radiation is a means of extracting some energy from the black hole. You can read up on Hawking radiation here http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html.
Tail
Tail is offline
#18
Apr19-04, 03:40 PM
P: 197
Obviously, I meant virtual particles (by the way, Hawking mentions situations where real particles have negative energy). I agree that because of Hawking radiation a black hole gets smaller, its mass/energy decreases, just nothing gets out of it. It's all about quantum fluctuations. I suggest reading "Black Holes Ain't So Black", chapter 7 of A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Black hole gravity Special & General Relativity 28
gravity for a stellar black hole Astrophysics 26
Black hole gravity response question General Astronomy 1
gravity of black hole General Astronomy 2
Black Hole Entropy in Quantum Gravity Beyond the Standard Model 1