Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Black Hole - Questions (discussion)

  1. Jun 16, 2011 #1
    I've been interested in the topic of black holes for some time yet, there seems to be many areas that I, as well as, many others have no possible way of proving or keep try to keep new "ideas" quiet until later proven or experimented on.

    So, I'm interested in a discussion of "possibilities" not necessarily of only what has "been" proven.

    First off, the idea of a black hole having infinite density just doesn't make sense. It sounds like when the application of time equaling zero, although it may be "needed" to do mathematics it simply does not apply to physical situation. So instead of infinite I will say "maximum" because although it will not be infinite it will be much larger than what I or any other has ever experienced.

    So, that being said, with the black hole being composed of fully degraded particles (I understand I'm not being specific as specifics for this idea simply do not apply for an understanding of what I am trying to say), that form from the desegregation of larger particles that are "assumed" to happen naturally but extremely slow (too slow for humans or any application that we currently have to "time"). Now as they are assumed to form naturally (negative free energy of formation per larger particle), would it be possible that the smaller degraded particles would form a lattice structure together away from the less stable larger particles? If this was the case, could it explain the flow, or lack there of, of light and material though a black hole? For instance could the material simply be pushed around the black hole as water does in oil, and that because of the lack of ability to view the "total" structure of a black hole (which may be simple for a sphere like structure if it indeed forms a lattice structure for stability), that we cannot see the object as it behind the black hole? Let me know what you think. Thanks.


    -Interested
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 16, 2011 #2

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I cannot understand pretty much any of your terms or concepts in this post.

    Do you understand that the "black hole" refers to the point beyond the event horizon and not an actual physical object in space? The structure of the BH is in its singularity in the center, although to say it is a structure may be incorrect, as it effectively has 0 volume with infinite (or in your terms, maximum) density.
     
  4. Jun 16, 2011 #3

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In that case I urge you to re-read the rules that you agreed to when you signed up on overly speculative posts. This is enforced very enthusiastically here. While some discussion of current unknowns will be allowed, you should be aware that there is a line beyond which speculation and personal theories will certainly result in deletion, warnings and even bannings.


    Why does it have to make sense? We are talking about the absolute strangest leaky margins of our universe to which there is no comparison, so no reason for it to make any sense compared to what we're used to.


    That is why it is called a singularity. It is a point in our universe where the laws as we understand them break down. We just don't have science for what lies beyond.

    As far as we know, matter could simply reduce to zero volume.


    I have no idea what you are trying to convey, but it most definitely falls in the realm of wild speculation.

    There are fora that will support this kind of speculation. PF is not one of them.
     
  5. Jun 17, 2011 #4
    Hmm... It seems that is idea of a discussion will be hard pressed here.... (yes again wild speculation)


    Again, as both of you said, zero volume (another physician term used for analysis to "define" an idea, can never happen, as I stated previously like infinite density or time at zero they are just used as a standard variable for mathematics used to define the starting a term). So I will assume both of you mean, minimum attainable volume as no volume cannot happen with any sort of "matter" in any system.

    As far as referring to it as a "black" hole, I was referring to it being a "black" object that we cannot measure currently, I was not getting specific in to if it was in fact a black hole or a star beyond the current scope of measurement. This is where I was hoping there would be a discussion.

    So, would it be possible that a highly stable degraded matter object ("Black" hole/star/object) could instead of absorbing or pulling in object as it is speculated, instead push away other less stable objects made from more complex forms of matter, possibly forming a boarder around the object. This type of interaction could lead to the objects looking as if they are at the edge of the "horizon" of the "black" object simply because of the inability to pass and interact with the stable structure. Let me know what you think.
     
  6. Jun 17, 2011 #5

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This doesn't explain why light can get trapped at the event horizon or why the null rays defining the EH for a dynamical black hole form a space - TIME boundary.
     
  7. Jun 18, 2011 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why not?

    Because it is nonintuitive? Because it doesn't fit with our understanding of the rest of the universe?
     
  8. Jun 18, 2011 #7
    You would be wrong to assume that. There's no evidence of a minimum volume in physics as we know it. One can extend known physics with such a postulate - many have - but you be speculating wildly. First you need to understand why a star collapses. Once you know why, then you can work from that knowledge to an informed speculation. Presently you're hand-waving.

    Look up "gravastar" theories for ideas roughly like what you describe.
     
  9. Jun 18, 2011 #8

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You are assuming that matter which falls into a black hole stays matter. Just look at the different stars out there after they "die". White dwarfs are collapsed balls of gas held up by electron degeneracy. Beyond that a Neutron Star forms where the electrons are forced into the protons to form Neutrons. Is is theorized that at pressures greater than that it might be possible to form a "Quark" star, where the neutrons have broken down and the entire star is composed of Quarks organized into exotic Hadrons which are normally unstable. Within a black hole I personally wouldn't expect to find anything considered matter. Whether or not this has a definite volume or not is unknown. At the densities of a black hole could matter be converted into a volume-less form such as a sea of infinite density photons? I cannot say.

    That is not what Black Hole means to most people. Why did you not say that at the beginning of your post? I actually cannot even understand if your post attempts to say that at all.

    Other than some hypothetical models such as a Gravastar, I don't believe there is much that says that would be possible.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Black Hole - Questions (discussion)
  1. Black Holes (Replies: 2)

  2. Black holes (Replies: 5)

  3. Black hole (Replies: 6)

  4. Black holes (Replies: 16)

Loading...