Exploring Singularity Behaviors When Black Holes Collide

[6nqpnw]

Was re-reading 'A Brief History of Time' the other night and came across this ::: "Two black holes collide to create an event horizon greater than the sum of the areas of the originals." There are no attempts to explain this phenomenon throughout the reading; though I believe there may be an explanation that doesn't violate today's precious 'empirical observations.'

Suppose the merging of two or more black holes is NOT a true merging. Rather than presuming singularities collide with one another, perhaps they dance around in orbits that prevent them from becoming a single entity. If so, these orbits would occupy an area larger than if condensed into a single point; consequently, the event horizon would appear greater than the sum of the originals.

Though I have no observational data to support this claim [cuz my black holescope is down for maintenance ::: <nyuck> <nyuck>], there was a "[URL documentary[/URL] on Discovery hosted by Morgan Freeman that showed a computer model for the projected paths of two colliding black holes [begin reading @ 14m 03s]. The results were that of non-decaying orbits in a cloverleaf pattern: precisely the same behavior as an electron with a proton (hydrogen, if u will). http://invaderxan.livejournal.com/11671.html?thread=10135" a few more black hole orbits that resemble electron clouds / atomic orbits.

Hopefully some of y'all will participate in discussion as I have add'l questions that build off of this but I don't want to hit you with it all at once.

- mudbug | 6nqpnw -
"Imagination is Everything." - Einstein
"To know nothing is to know everything." - Confucius

 

[Chalnoth]

"No hair" theorems for black holes state that the only possible quantities that can be used to fully-describe a black hole are mass, charge, and angular momentum. There is no available degree of freedom to allow for "distance between singularities". Thus upon merging, the system must rapidly relax into a normal black hole configuration, and it does this through the emission of gravitational waves.

 

[6nqpnw]

Why, oh why, must I defend the results of accredited peoples?!

I'm going to play the Quantumn Mechanics card to save this discussion ::: "No hair" theorem is accurate for General Relativity but breaks down on the quantumn level, which is where singularities theoretically thrive. So unless you're going to outright discount the speculative existence of singularities and/or ignore the computer predictions of black holes (singularities) collapsing into non-decaying orbits (never colliding) that were developed by bubble-heads who are surely competent enough to apply all applicable maths and laws (thermodynamics included), may I suggest we analyze / discuss their results as something other than a misplaced decimal, a mere coincidence or a flagrant violation of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. <I'm outta breath> ... please.

- mudbug | 6nqpnw -
"Imagination is Everything." - Einstein
"To know nothing is to know everything." - Confucius

 

[Chalnoth]

Why, oh why, must I defend the results of accredited peoples?!

I'm going to play the Quantumn Mechanics card to save this discussion ::: "No hair" theorem is accurate for General Relativity but breaks down on the quantumn level, which is where singularities theoretically thrive.

I don't think you're defending anything but your own interpretation. A very, very simple argument is that if the interior of the black hole didn't relax, then the black hole wouldn't obey the no hair theorem, because the full definition of the black hole would include macroscopic degrees of freedom other than mass, angular momentum, and charge. This is a reasonable argument because the quantum mechanics of black holes, whatever they may be, must reduce to the General Relativistic result in some limits (which, for larger black holes, must be the case at least at the horizon, if not for some distance inside the horizon).

And besides, if you're going to be talking about the quantum mechanical description of a black hole, there won't be any singularity anyway.

 

[HotBuffet]

"Two black holes collide to create an event horizon greater than the sum of the areas of the originals."

schwarzchild radius r = 2Gm / c^2
when the mass doubles, the radius doubles.

surface = 4*pi*r^2
when the radius (r) gets 2x as big, the surface gets 4x as big. So the 'area' of the event horizon, gets 2x bigger then the total of the two original black holes.

 

[6nqpnw]

Okay. Alright. <ahem> It seems as though I'm missing the mark in both instances. Hmmm ... check http://books.google.com/books?id=6a...=3&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false". Instead, I get flamed by the first arbitrarily contradicting point that pops into your argumentative mindset.

<DEEP sigh> Dammit u guys ::: I quote a statement directly from THE astrophysicist of our era, and you mathematically attempt to debunk me. I didn't state it ... wheelchair tracheotomy man stated it {you're thinking "He doesn't have a tracheotomy, it's amyotrophic lateral sclerosis! He talks through a computer!" aren't you?!} I would hope Hawking has some inkling of black hole behavior (as well as Roger Penrose, mind you).

As for the 'no hair' theorem, let's review its history. The very existence of black holes was theoretically proven purely mathematically prior to a single shred of observational evidence during a time when the idea of black holes was shun. It was one of those rare moments in science and was later dubbed the 'no hair' theorem. These computer models of theoretical non-decaying orbits of singularities very well could be precisely the same situation. So rather than say the computer results are impossible (like the anti-black hole wrong-holios), why not consider it an exception to the theorem, or maybe change the 'no hair' theorem to the 'male pattern baldness' theorem.

So please let the discussion continue henseforth based on the very reasonable assumption that the experts have already done the leg-work of proving their findings as credible ... please.

- mudbug | 6nqpnw -
"Imagination is Everything." - Einstein
"To know nothing is to know everything." - Confucius

 

[Chalnoth]

I have yet to see you actually mention where Hawking claims that a black hole merger results in non-decaying orbits of the singularities inside the event horizon. Because it seems pretty clear to me that such a behavior would be completely contrary to what we know about the space-time inside the event horizon of a black hole.

I don't see how the non-decreasing horizon size for the non-radiating black hole in any way helps your case here.

 

[Ich]

in other words, Hawking essentially states ::: r1 + r2 = r3 + x

What's the problem? r3<=r1+r2. True. A3>=A1+A2. Also true. Contradiction? None.

why not consider it an exception to the theorem

Sorry, this is bogus.
A theorem is a mathematical statement. It can be proved or not. If it is proved, well, that's it. There are no exceptions.
Now if someone comes saying that on Discovery Channel they said something that he likes to interpret as a numerical model contradicting a proven theorem of the very basics the model is relying on, what do you make of it?
There are no stable orbits inside the event horizon.
If you believe to have heard otherwise, show your sources. You (or the source, if you can find one) are wrong.

 

[6nqpnw]

There are no stable orbits inside the event horizon.

Here is an 8-page paper that flys in the face of this statement ::: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.5195v2.pdf"
And another paper by a team of physicists studying http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0671v2.pdf" in which is shown an exception to these pseudo-spiral orbits: namely the cloverleaf orbits.

If you believe to have heard otherwise, show your sources. You (or the source, if you can find one) are wrong.

Would you like some dressing when you eat your word salad? ::: I have nothing further to prove.

...Hawking claims that a black hole merger results in non-decaying orbits of the singularities inside the event horizon.

I don't see how the non-decreasing horizon size for the non-radiating black hole...

Clearly, I have failed in sufficiently showing my correlation.

Hawking isn't claiming this. In fact, his (and Penrose's) claim to explain the phenomenon of two mergining event horizons' areas resulting in a single event horizon with an area greater than the sum of the original two is based on thermodynamics and entropy. His claim also explains the non-decreasing horizon size, but that's beyond the scope of my correlation ::: I don't care that BH's don't shrink ... or even why! I'm specifically referring to the phenomenon (of r3 > r1 + r2, if u will) ... <sigh> let's call it 'Greater Sum Horizon Phenomenon.'

I am merely offering up an alternate explanation (alternate to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). I'm suggesting entropy has absolutely nothing to do with Greater Sum Horizon Phenomenon as this behavior could be fully explained via singularities with orbits that survive the dissipative drain of gravitational radiation. Since the singularities are occupying an area greater than if they were merged into a single point then the resulting horizon would consequently be one greater than the sum of the originals.

I have no works on this correlation, no established support to show its validity. The idea is only a week old and I wanted to test the waters on its plausibility by greater thinkers and experts in the field. Instead of discussion, I'm met with resistance to speculation and outright offensiveness. Nonetheless, I look forward to any and all responses.

- mudbug | 6nqpnw -
"Imagination is Everything." - Einstein
"To know nothing is to know everything." - Confucius

 

[Chalnoth]

Here is an 8-page paper that flys in the face of this statement ::: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.5195v2.pdf"
And another paper by a team of physicists studying http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0671v2.pdf" in which is shown an exception to these pseudo-spiral orbits: namely the cloverleaf orbits.

These are orbits of black holes outside one another's event horizon. And if you look into both papers, they both explain that these orbits are expected to decay.

But no, the non-decreasing horizon size doesn't help you here. This is just an indication that some of the kinetic energy of the black holes before the merger is converted to mass energy in the final black hole state.

 

[6nqpnw]

outside

Click! There we have it; now I get it. That's the clarification that I've been craving. Thx for your time. I'm going to go and find something else for my entire life to be about now.

< I think I'll have Italian Dressing with my salad today. >

 

[Chalnoth]

Click! There we have it; now I get it. That's the clarification that I've been craving. Thx for your time. I'm going to go and find something else for my entire life to be about now.

< I think I'll have Italian Dressing with my salad today. >

Very good!

 

[Chronos]

Singularities make me very uncomfortable. I prefer Planck density as a default assumption.

 

[Driftwood1]

Singularities make me very uncomfortable. I prefer Planck density as a default assumption.

Singularties are abstract Mathematical constructs. Who knows if they have a physical and tangible existence in reality (whatever reality means).

Planckian limits provide an practical escape clause as they imply a low limit to how small a dimension or physical property can get. THe Universe must have a fine grittiness as part of its very essence rather than being perfectly smooth as one approaches zero.

Are the Planck limits theoretical boundaries written in stone?

 

[KillerVamp09]

Not to stir the pot but if you pile on more mass onto a black hole won't the radius of the singularity decrease as there is more gravitational influence? As in the more matter contained within the singularity the smaller the singularity due to the density of the singularity increasing. Or will the singularity eventually reach a maximum density, causing the radius and surface area to increase after that density is reached?

 

[Chalnoth]

Not to stir the pot but if you pile on more mass onto a black hole won't the radius of the singularity decrease as there is more gravitational influence? As in the more matter contained within the singularity the smaller the singularity due to the density of the singularity increasing. Or will the singularity eventually reach a maximum density, causing the radius and surface area to increase after that density is reached?

Within General Relativity, we can only talk sensibly about the event horizon. And the event horizon increases in size when additional matter enters the black hole.

The size of the singularity is a nonsensical concept, as a singularity has no size. Of course, we can be quite sure that there isn't an actual singularity within a black hole, but we can also be pretty sure the matter in the interior of a black hole isn't just a compact object at the center.

 

[Tanelorn]

Since the centers of the two black holes are much smaller than their Schwarzschild radii then what is there to stop them continuing to orbit each other inside their mutual Schwarzschild radius? Is it that gravitational attraction is so intense that the objects would have to exceed the speed of light to maintain any kind of orbital path?

 

[Chalnoth]

Since the centers of the two black holes are much smaller than their Schwarzschild radii then what is there to stop them continuing to orbit each other inside their mutual Schwarzschild radius? Is it that gravitational attraction is so intense that the objects would have to exceed the speed of light to maintain any kind of orbital path?

There are no stable orbits even near the event horizon of a black hole, let alone inside it.