Register to reply

Difference between a Gravity Well and a Black Hole

by Dave Hooley
Tags: black, difference, gravity, hole
Share this thread:
Dave Hooley
#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 Astronomy news on Phys.org
Fermi finds a 'transformer' pulsar
Astrophysicists model the formation of the oldest-known star in our galaxy
Hubble traces the halo of a galaxy more accurately than ever before
Tail
#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
#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
#4
Feb10-04, 05:40 PM
P: 2,954
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
#5
Feb10-04, 05:42 PM
P: 2,954
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
#6
Feb11-04, 08:58 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020
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
#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
#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
#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
#10
Apr8-04, 01:02 AM
P: 1
Why The Black Wholes Are Not So Black?
Phobos
#11
Apr8-04, 02:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020
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
#12
Apr8-04, 02:14 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020
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
#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
#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
#15
Apr18-04, 06:50 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,982
Hawking radiation of a black hole is a rather slow process and for most is insignificant but never the less present.
Tail
#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
#17
Apr19-04, 01:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,982
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
#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 Astronomy & Astrophysics 26
Black hole gravity response question Astronomy & Astrophysics 1
Gravity of black hole Astronomy & Astrophysics 2
Black Hole Entropy in Quantum Gravity Beyond the Standard Model 1