What Happens to Matter in a Black Hole?

[only1universe]

To my knowledge matter and energy is not anchored in spacetime. It is always moving through it. The expansion doesn't provide a force or anything like that to physically move the matter, it is that space is constantly being created in between any point in space and another.

Doesn't this fundamentally change a coordinate of matter? And if not then how did matter manage to stay in the same place? I view this as a propellant- even if it is only conceptual, Matter did in-fact move.

I don't know what you mean by saying that time and distance have become a non-factor. Also, the view that particles can interact instantly over a large distance is, again to my knowledge, just an interpretation. Nothing about the experiments show conclusively that this occurs.

A positron doesn't demonstrate this ability?

This seems like nonsense to me. It makes no sense to talk about a universe with no observers. A universe with no matter, mass, or energy probably doesn't even count as being a universe. Also, I don't see why matter would be needed in order for time to exist. There is a difference between us measuring the passage of time and the actual existence of time. It sounds like you are saying that without matter spacetime does not exist.

Would a vacuum not be a universe? Is vacuum behavior in the absence of matter mass and energy even a rational idea?

 

[Drakkith]

Doesn't this fundamentally change a coordinate of matter? And if not then how did matter manage to stay in the same place? I view this as a propellant- even if it is only conceptual, Matter did in-fact move.

Coordinates in relation to what? There is no absolute reference frame. The distance between two objects in space increased, but this did not cause either object to move within local space. For example, if two protons moved exactly opposite of each other at 50% c about 10 billion years ago, the rate of increase in distance the two move apart has generally been increasing over time. However neither one is moving through "local" space at any different velocity than they were initially. How do we know this? Because the acceleration increases as distance increases, not time. If it were solely a force that accelerated particles then it wouldn't matter what the distance between 2 objects were, only how long ago they were emitted.

How did matter stay in the same place? Because space itself was either expanding or new space was created. Either way it's the same effect.

A positron doesn't demonstrate this ability?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. This looks exactly the same as saying "An electron doesn't demonstrate this ability?" What context are we talking about? What happened?

Would a vacuum not be a universe? Is vacuum behavior in the absence of matter mass and energy even a rational idea?

Not to me. Everything I have seen points to a minimum amount of energy that the universe possesses in its ground state. The removal of this...well, just doesn't really make any sense to me. I am far from an expert on this, so I won't gurantee that I am correct on all this. If something is incorrect, someone please correct me.

 

[tvscientist]

RE: Black Holes

I do not believe BH are anything but extreme examples of established physics. People seem to get all spooky since light does not escape these things. That is simply a matter of extreme gravity. Photons either go into orbit within or near the even horizon, or simply come to a near stop within the extreme gravity.

IMHO a BH is nothing but a place where space, time, matter, and energy simple come to an effective stop.

 

[Drakkith]

RE: Black Holes

I do not believe BH are anything but extreme examples of established physics. People seem to get all spooky since light does not escape these things. That is simply a matter of extreme gravity. Photons either go into orbit within or near the even horizon, or simply come to a near stop within the extreme gravity.

IMHO a BH is nothing but a place where space, time, matter, and energy simple come to an effective stop.

Photons never stop, they always travel at c in every reference frame. The explanation I know best for light not escaping a black hole is that all paths the photon can travel are bent back into the black hole. Imagine a skate boarder on a half pipe. With a black hole the half pipe curves back into itself, so no matter how fast the skateboarder goes, they can never get up and out of the half pipe. Nor does time or matter stop. An infalling observer, assuming they survived the entry past the event horizon, would always be experiencing time at the normal rate for themselves.

 

[tvscientist]

I don't see why Black Holes are anything special. I don't see how our 'math breaks down'. Even Hawking acknowledges Susskind was correct in his assessment that Black Holes do not evaporate by Quantum Mechanics.

As matter accretes towards a BH it simply spins itself into a spiral onion layer. From our perspective the onion layer approaches zero thickness, then disappears below an expanding event horizon. The event horizon is determined by 1) the accreting mass plus 2) matter that was trapped by the original stellar collapse.

The original mass does not form a singularity since almost all the subsequent gravity is generated by mass that accumulates near the event horizon. Any mass not exactly in the gravitational center of mass will accrete outwards. Since the accretion disk is non symetrical, the BH almost certainly is hollow.

 

[Drakkith]

Where did you get your infomation on black holes from? I've never heard of most of that before.

 

[chadthree6ty]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I mean, if you just think about how everything else works, it just makes sense.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?
Its my belief that we in fact live in a multiverse and on the flipside of a black hole, when it accumulates enough matter to go critical, BANG!
Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.
Of course this is just a theory and opinion, and you know what they say about those. ;)

 

[Drakkith]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I mean, if you just think about how everything else works, it just makes sense.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?

If you were told matter could not be created or destroyed then someone gave you false information. Mass and energy are a different story, neither can be created or destroyed.

Its my belief that we in fact live in a multiverse and on the flipside of a black hole, when it accumulates enough matter to go critical, BANG!

There is no evidence of this and as far as I know very little reason to think any of this is possible.

Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We create matter in particle colliders all the time. There is no reason to recycle them as they can be converted to energy and radiated out as hawking radiation.

Of course this is just a theory and opinion, and you know what they say about those. ;)

Actually scientific theories are NOT what most people think they are. I suggest you look up what a scientific theory really is. Suggesting that something is "just a theory" means that whoever says that has no idea what science is about.

 

[DaveC426913]

As matter accretes towards a BH it simply spins itself into a spiral onion layer. From our perspective the onion layer approaches zero thickness, then disappears below an expanding event horizon. The event horizon is determined by 1) the accreting mass plus 2) matter that was trapped by the original stellar collapse.

The original mass does not form a singularity since almost all the subsequent gravity is generated by mass that accumulates near the event horizon. Any mass not exactly in the gravitational center of mass will accrete outwards. Since the accretion disk is non symetrical, the BH almost certainly is hollow.

This is all completely wrong. You should read up on the structure of black holes.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?

For the record, evaporation does not mean the mass disappears. It means the mass leaves the black hole and returns to the universe, though not at all in the same form.

Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.

Really? How will these electrons and protons acquire so much kinetic energy that they can climb up a curve so steep that even massless light itself cannot climb?

 

[GRAViL59]

Strangely enough I have just post a question with a similar though in mind. Mass is a very important quality to have in our universe, the larger your mass the less chance you have of being annihilated.

My thinking being that as a black hole’s mass increases its gravity will increase this in turn attracting even more material towards it… a massive black hole could easily absorb stars and smaller black holes and just keep growing? It makes sense to me that at the centre of such massive object matter would be shredded and stripped back to its most basic constituents and perhaps even “squeezed” into another dimension (I don’t like the word dimension but I can’t think of an alternative).

 

[DaveC426913]

Strangely enough I have just post a question with a similar though in mind. Mass is a very important quality to have in our universe, the larger your mass the less chance you have of being annihilated.

My thinking being that as a black hole’s mass increases its gravity will increase this in turn attracting even more material towards it…

A diffuse, gaseous cloud of mass m has precisely the same gravitational effect on its surroundings as a black hole of mass m. i.e. the mass that existed before it became a black hole had just as much pull on the stars gas and dust around it as it will once it collapses into a black hole.

 

[GRAViL59]

I have always seen massive objects (stars, black holes..) as cosmic vacuum cleaners... I assumed that the more massive an object is the more material will "gravitate" towards it...

I'm not sure if black holes are constantly getting larger or if they are getting smaller due to the effects of Hawking Radiation??

 

[DaveC426913]

I assumed that the more massive an object is the more material will "gravitate" towards it...

It is a good assumption. But it is not endemic to black holes. Any object (such as a diffuse cloud) will attract material directly proportional to its mass.

Gravitationally, BHs are nothing special. If the sun were magically replaced with a BH of the same mass as the sun, the solar system would happily continue to pirouette about it as if nothing had happened.

The key difference with a BH is that, whereas the closest you could get the sun is its surface (400,000 miles from its center), the closest you could get the BH is only a few miles - this means that, below 400,000 miles and above a few miles, gravity can be vastly, vastly increased - millions of g's.

But even Mercury, zipping around a few millions of miles overhead would be blissfully ignorant of it.

In a nutshell, the gravity well from the Sun and the gravity well from the BH both have the same slope - it's just that, with the BH, you can go much farther down the well.

I'm not sure if black holes are constantly getting larger or if they are getting smaller due to the effects of Hawking Radiation??

It depends on if anything gets close enough to be eaten. BHs with lots around them can "gorge" themselves. BHs with little around them can "starve".

 

[GRAViL59]

Thanks for the reply... I'll apply a bit more thought to all this stuff.

I think you should look at my other post... because you are a Smartypants! We should have a beer together.

Thanks again for your reply

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you should look at my other post...

Other post? You mean the gravity is a weak force post?