Can Mass Exist in a Singularity?

[misskitty]

They do "absorb" anything that falls into them, but they don't necessarily have an "intense gravitational field." A 1 kg black hole has exactly the same gravitational field as a 1 kg lump of sand. From a distance, both the 1 kg black hole and the 1 kg lump of sand would be gravitationally indistinguishable. The only difference is that you can get really, really close to a 1 kg black hole without ever bumping into any of its matter and being repelled -- so close that the escape velocity increases until it eventually exceeds c, and you're inside the hole.

- Warren

I had no idea they could be that small! I always thought they were the same size as stars...like ours. How small can a black hole theoretically be?

 

[misskitty]

A reaction called "beta decay" is responsible for much of the radioactivity in the world, with which you are already presumably familiar. Beta decay is the spontaneous decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron (and an anti-neutrino, but that's not relevant right now).

Like all reactions, the inverse of this decay is also possible -- it's called "inverse beta decay." If you can squeeze an electron and proton close enough together, they will spontaneously undergo inverse beta decay, becoming a netruon and emitting a neutrino. This reaction happens naturally in very few places in the universe, except at the center of massive, dying stars.

- Warren

Other than dying stars, what can induce such a process? Is it the intensity of pressure or heat? Where else does this happen other than the stars you mentioned?

This is going to sound ignorant; have physicists managed to discover a way to duplicate this process in a particle accelerator (I'm not even sure if that where you would conduct such an experiment)?

 

[misskitty]

As uneasy as it might make you, this is a question which has no answer. We cannot, even in principle, know anything about so specific about what's inside a black hole. The only characteristics of a black hole that can be measured are its mass, charge, and angular momentum. Since most physicists are in the philsophical camp that something that cannot be measured cannot be said to really exist, most physicists are satisfied to just say that we cannot know anything about the contents of a black hole, including its atomic or sub-atomic composition. It's a question which cannot have an answer.

- Warren

Your answer doesn't make me uneasy; just makes me think more.

In your opinion, do you think there will be a way to discover what is inside a black hole?

By the way, Warren thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, even though they might be very tedious for you. Sincerly thanks.

 

[misskitty]

I had to reread your post a few times to makes sure I comprehended it. Although I'm not sure I did.

I agree completely with everything Warren has just said, but want to add that it is also possible to measure externally any magnetic field that may emanate from the black hole point (singularity).

I add this as I think (just an opinion, not necessarily true) that in the early universe very many magnetic monopoles were created. (This is in accord with standard theory). None have been directly observed, but once a superconducting ring had a current step that corresponded to that a single magnetic monopole passing thru the ring would have produced.

Would that mean it would have happended within one second of the creation of the universe? Would the superconducting ring have been magnetic or electric? A monopole passing through it would have messed with whatever it was superconducting?

My opinion is that the N poles and the S poles were produced as predicted and were able to attract each other over long distances even when the electrons and protons had formed neutral neutral atoms (Before the first stars formed, there was no ionizing UV radiation, so most matter was neutral and only had weak, short range, Van der Walls and "covalent bonding" forces to form molecules when the temperature had dropped enough. I.e about 400,000 years after the BB start of the universe and time.)

That is, I think almost all the N&S monopoles joined. It turns out that theory about them predicts they are extremely heavy (Each at least 10^15 times more massive that a proton - some calculation make it 10^21 times as heavy, but please do not trust any of these number as I am only reproducing them from years old memory. Goggle and find out the latest thinking about the mass of a monopole.)

N & S would mean north and south monopoles right? Meaning they would have opposite magnetic charges? Or am I so far in left field its not funny?

In any case, they are so massive that it is reasonable to think that only two might have formed a "micro black hole." - There are a lots of reasons to think that it quickly "evaporated," so perhaps that is why essentially no monopoles are observed to day. I do not know to what extent, if any, the effect of a net magnetic field may change the decay/ evaporation of a micro BH. (I think it highly unlikely that exactly the same number of N and S monopoles would end up in each BH, but this could be case if only two form a BH and it evaporates before the third arrives.)

They are so big they might have formed a microuniverse? Evaporated as in became stable?

If you found a magnetic monopole, not only would you get the Noble Prize, but you would be able to rent it for at least $100,000 / day - It would be easy to accelerate it to much higher energies than any current accelerator can make. (The bigger particle accelerators cost a lot of money just to operate.) Most experimental attempts have used strong magnetic field gradients and iron metorites as the potential source but one such effort in Chicago, used oysters on the theory (So they said in the grant proposal) that oysters are filter feeders that have pre-processed great quantities of sea water. Personally I think fact that oyster taste good and are expensive in Chicago had something to do with this selection :tongue2:

With technology advancing at such a massive rate it wouldn't surprise me if someone makes this kind of discovery in my lifetime.

 

[hkhandrika]

Could the particles disapear if they are energized and heated up fast enough at a high enough velocity? I don't know if that makes sense... I hope so...

No particles cannot disappear unless you have a matter & anti-matter collision in which both particles disappear and get converted COMPLETELY into gamma ray energy.

If a black hole lead to another universe then wouldn't that make it a wormhole? If it does lead to another dimension, would it be one of the 11 dimensions physicists use in their calculations to explain how are universe works? Who came up with the theory a black hole leads to another dimesion and universe?

I don't remember who came up with this idea, but I remember reading it in a book by Stephen Hawking.

 

[hkhandrika]

I had no idea they could be that small! I always thought they were the same size as stars...like ours. How small can a black hole theoretically be?

In nature, they usually occur with stars that are greater than 2 solar masses. However if you crunched something down to a small small size then you could get a black hole. The way to measure this is with the schwarzchild radius equation: R = 2Gm/c^2

Where R = radius from singularity to the event horizon. G = universal gravitational constant of 6.67 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2. m = progenitor mass (the mass of the obj. before it became a BH) and c = speed of light.

If you wanted to make the Earth into a black hole, you would need to squish everything down to a ball of radius 0.9 cm. That's tiny!

 

[chroot]

I had no idea they could be that small! I always thought they were the same size as stars...like ours. How small can a black hole theoretically be?

There is no theoretical limit; practically, the mass of the least massive particle, I suppose, is the limit.

Other than dying stars, what can induce such a process? Is it the intensity of pressure or heat? Where else does this happen other than the stars you mentioned?

All you need to do to create black hole is to put enough mass within a small enough volume. Dying tars do this via self-gravitation, and they are the only known natural mechanism which creates black holes.

This is going to sound ignorant; have physicists managed to discover a way to duplicate this process in a particle accelerator (I'm not even sure if that where you would conduct such an experiment)?

Several accelerators are now considered able to produce black holes. Smashing two gold nuclei can briefly put enough mass in a small enough volume to create a mini-black hole, and it's possible it's already been done. Such a tiny black hole will evaporate in essentially zero time, however, so it's hard to say it ever existed at all.

In your opinion, do you think there will be a way to discover what is inside a black hole?

Sure, you could go jump inside one and find out. The problem is that you could never tell anyone else what you saw.

- Warren

 

[spicerack]

Who came up with the theory a black hole leads to another dimesion and universe?

...since a black hole is the means by which a universe reproduces — that is, spawns another - Lee Smolin

http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/z-Ch.17.html

and check this for white holes and wormholes

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

 

[chroot]

spicerack,

Such things have never been detected in reality. Please do not post them as if they have been.

- Warren

 

[spicerack]

sorry Warren, I was just posting a link to something I read and adding some flavour to the thread

It is not for me to decide whether they are detectable in reality but if they aren't then a whole lot of clever people are going to have egg on their face and their places in history written out of the book and a whole lot of money will have been wasted in a fruitless search that ultimately led to nowhere in particular

 

[chroot]

No one's looking for white holes, or other universes. Only fiction writers do that.

- Warren

 

[spicerack]

If they knew what to look for they would be but what about parallel universes or how about extra dimensions ?

In search of hidden dimensions

So far, string theory has defied experiments, but Nima Arkani-Hamed thinks he has found a way to put the idea to the test. Geoff Brumfiel finds out how.

String fellow: Nima Arkani-Hamed hopes that particle-collision experiments will show that gravity leaks into other dimensions.
Ask most theorists when they think their calculations will be tested experimentally and you'll be told "decades" or sometimes, more honestly, "never".

But ask Nima Arkani-Hamed, a physicist at Harvard University, and he will give you a far closer date: 2008. That is when the first results from the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, are expected to be released by CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. And if Arkani-Hamed's predictions are correct, then that is when an experiment will detect the first evidence to support string theory — a vision of the cosmos that has never been verified experimentally. "The field is going to turn on what happens at the collider," he says.

continue here...

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/433010a_fs.html

 

[chroot]

Extra dimensions and "parallel universes" are quite different concepts, spicerack. They don't, in fact, need to have anything in common.

- Warren

 

[spicerack]

I thought they were co dependent you can't have one without the other or at least having one opens up the probability of the other existing also the commonality being strings

could you post a link to support your mutually exclusive claim ?

much appreciated Warren, thanks

 

[ctrebor]

There is a paradox- Relativity requires that you specify what your frame of reference is. A spaceship can go into a black hole- and will fairly rapidly be squished out of existence as all matter in the spaceship is accelerated towards the singularity at the centre of the black hole. This is what happens in the accretion disk around black holes. However from the viewpoint of someone outside the star, the spaceship would probably seem to slow to a crawl and then freeze somewhere along the way. The black hole or "frozen star" does have mass, energy, charge etc., which would be the sum total of all the mass which had reached the so-called event horizon at the point in time of measurement- a black hole can get bigger of course. A black hole is a paradoxical object. It does not make sense to think of a black hole as a singularity, as there is no singularity within a black hole- yet. If we managed to remain outside it forever, the singularity would never exist, however there is probably no means of remaining outside a black hole forever!