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

Try and prove this wrong

  1. Jun 23, 2003 #1
    If a singularity is formed at the heart of a collapsing star to form a blackhole,how does it happen.a pulsar or a neutron star is a failed attempt at a star creating one.so obviously matter is not compressed into a infinite single point.a neutron star is a compact planetoid of highly compressed matter.so if the star that created it was bigger what would have happened.matter at the exact center of the star must recieve equal pressure from all points as matter is compressed.so matter just keeps building up,not get smaller.so as the core of the star reaches the size of a average pulsar or neutron star,then the singularity will form as it keeps getting compressed.so if matter sqeezed all the space out from between the atoms as it reached that size.then either the singularity formed inside solid matter with just gravity focused at the center,without warping spacetime around the infinite point of compressed matter,or spacetime folded around the neutron star or pulsar,as its the stars core.but then how would matter on the inside decompress matter if a neutron star still is compact matter in this universe.and its hard to prove matter is sqaushed into one point,because if all points around the core have equal pressure on them matter has to focus this pressure at this point in the center.one shift of the pressure on the outside of the core,shifts the pressure on this single point in the center,changing the focus of its collapse.its like the strongest man can't break an egg when he holds it right,whats thew difference.the big of a compressed matter core would have to have pressure change all the time to compress it by like kneading it into a smaller mass as its compressed.even still,the singularity forms under these conditions.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 23, 2003 #2
    Neutron stars form when the star collapsing doesn't have enough mass to create a large enough gravitational field to make a black hole.
  4. Jun 24, 2003 #3
    I must admit I don't really understand your argument. Can you explain the essence of it once more?

    It seems you think that the core of a star can collapse without the whole star collapsing. That's not right.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2003
  5. Jun 25, 2003 #4
    I'm not following your understanding of the collapse of a Star. Are you insinuating that the existance of Neutron stars prohibits the unform collapse of a star into a black hole? That isn't true. A neutron star exists because the electomagnetic and nuclear forces balance the gravitational force. Only when there is enough matter, can gravity begin to compress the star further, but even then, the compression is uniform (relatively). This wouldn't be wholly remarkable, except when the mass is right, spacetime is warped so dramatically, that the subatomic particles are physically bumping into each other with TREMENDOUS energy. Now, this is the point that we have trouble visualizing, because even when the matter is physically touching on a subatomic level, the volume continues to decrease. That would imply a loss of 'volume' without a loss of mass. But the theoretical predictions seem to allow for this. Either a converstion to energy or a destruction of matter must have taken place while still maintaining the curvature of space time.
    Your analogy of the man crushing the egg isn't entirely accurate either, because that involves a redistrubution of pressure across the hatchwork of the shell. In the case of a star, no redistrubution can take place because of the perfectly (in theory) spherical symmetry of the collapsing forces.
    I guess, in summary: a star can collapse uniformly, and probably has to in order to avoid continuous Nova occuring, and if one can find a place to put the matter (i.e. if its converted entierly to energy, but can still affect the curvature of spacetime) then a total collapse to infinite density is perfectly (if such a word is appropriate) plausable.

    Of course, I could be totally off base with what your asking. We'll find out :)
  6. Jun 25, 2003 #5
    Well what I'm saying is that when matter is compressed,the core builds up.on the outside as its crushing it inwards.the only way to get matter to keep compacting is to off set the pressure around the growing core,because equal pressure all around would'nt be able to force it smaller.as the core gets bigger and gravity gets stronger as the star keeps collapsing,what im saying is the singularity must form in thousands of miles of compact matter.and its hard to imagine that gravitys effect on spacetime in such dense matter would'nt curve it,because all the space has been displaced,or pushed out and all thats left is solid matter.the focus of gravity at the center has to do it all by itself.or spacetime folds around the planetiod size core.because what has to happen is that when the singularity forms enough matter must been in it to create a strong gravitational field by itself to suck matter in,or eat the star from the inside out.
  7. Jun 25, 2003 #6
    You're still way off base. The reason a black hole can form is because the mass of the star is sufficient enough to allow for a gravitational field to collapse beyond the density of a neutron star. There is no increases mass. The "core" doesn't get bigger and it doesn't increase gravity. The DENSITY of the material increases causing the gravitational field gradient to be stronger much closer. There is now so much mass in the gravity well that spacetime begins to break down causing a loss in volume and the creation of a singularity. The matter that was once a star is inside the singularity. One didn't just pop up in the middle of a neutron star. The star mass BECOMES the singularity. The effect of this singularity forms an event horizon around it that is the no-mans-land for matter and light; once past it you're in for good.
  8. Jun 25, 2003 #7
    if gravity is the pulling of energy toward a body of mass,as it needs energy for magnetic field,spacetime becomes depleated by the demand for energy.when the suns gravity increases the stars matter barely has enough enough energy just to function in time,let alone give it the ability to fold spacetime around the singularity to entrap the energy of the matter as it collids with the singularity and is absorbed inside.the reason im posting this is because i want to prove that when the singularity forms its not spacetime that folds around matter that gives the universe its form and boundries.i want to prove that matter and a singularity are both normal energy entrapped by a anti energy field.not spacetime.this would give matter the ability to move through space by increasing and decreasing its outer anti gravtiy field,as it repels against spacetime.because magnetism would be a field of anti energy interaction between matter,thus making it move by the same thing.so what i want is a model that predicts the singularity is formed this way.but still does the same this.because it could work because if gravity pulls spacetime energy toward it at light or faster,it means spacetimes charge is so low that a anti energy field around energy would have no outside pull on it to rip it apart.motion would be matter natural increase of anti energy as it takes on energy to stablize the field,thus moving faster as it increases its anti charge.
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2003
  9. Jun 25, 2003 #8
    What are you smoking? Cause I want some. You idea of physics is pretty askew. Where to begin? First off, the effect of gravity is the curvature of spacetime according to General Relativity. Gravity is not the "pulling" of energy toward a body of mass. I don't know the tangent about magnetic fields being "anti-energy" but you don't know anything about physics do you. A black hole is a rip in spacetime caused by a overabundance of mass in a small area. Then you start to sound like a bad sci-fi movie afterwards. You don't try to prove anything. You're throwing out techobabble like "magnetism would be a feild of anti energy interaction between matter". You're not going to find a model because you theory makes no sense. Black holes don't fly through the universe faster than light. Spacetime is a 4 dimentional backdrop in which the rest of the universe interacts in. There is no charge to it. There is no "anti-energy" field that forms inside collapsing stars. You seem to want to be taken seriously but you throw out made up physics like it was a star track episode. You show no math and no knowledge of modern physics. If you're not going to listen to people that are trying to make you see the light, then there is no point in helping you is there.
  10. Jun 25, 2003 #9
    Neutroncount makes a well deserved point, albeit a bit more harshly that I might have :) You're understanding of how spacetime works is not accurate. Spacetime is not a substance that can be 'moved aside'. Matter does not take the place of space in a black hole. If possible, you have to imagine spacetime as a 4 dimensional Jell-O mold, with the 3 dimensional star imbedded inside. Its not an easy thing to see. But more to the point, 'Energy' has no mass and has no charge, so it is impossible to have an 'anti-energy'. As much as I'd like to applaude your effort, I'll stick to Einstein, et al's understanding of blackhole formation.
  11. Jun 25, 2003 #10
    Yeah yeah. Sorry for the harshness. But it just seems like some people completely ignore what you tell them. I guess I got a bit frustrated. I'm much better now.
  12. Dec 12, 2003 #11
    I have taken college level physics, have studied physics for some time on my own now. I know I don't have a clue when it comes to some subjects, but even I can tell that what chosenone is saying is just flat out wrong. So wrong as a matter of fact I can't even think of the mathmatics to disprove the ideas. They have no basis.
  13. Dec 13, 2003 #12
    I have read his theories twice and still don't understand what he's getting at. Maybe he is getting anti-matter confused with anti-energy. Is he talking about a form of Hawking radiation?
  14. Dec 14, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Looks like some one has been doing some mining! This is an ancient topic,(look at the dates of the posts!) which the old timers would just as soon stay buried! Choosenone has not posted for some time. I think he is making an effort to learn some of the basics. Perhaps he will return a bit more knowledable. Until then lets let this topic rest.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2003
  15. Dec 18, 2003 #14
    " Well what I'm saying is that when matter is compressed,the core builds up.on the outside as its crushing it inwards.the only way to get matter to keep compacting is to off set the pressure around the growing core "

    Keep compacting??

    Hello!!!!! That's why it takes an extremely massive stellar event to produce a black hole, and why they are rare.
  16. Dec 19, 2003 #15
    If vacuum is an isolator, shouldn't a black hole be a conducter?

    If the leptones have formed a unity inside the black hole, as stated,
    wouldn't that support this theory. The theoretical
    superconducter-spinn proposed by a nobel price taker should be there...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?