Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole


  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

#1 michaleben123

michaleben123

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 08:08 PM

When we try to understand the center of a black hole what are we going to use?

 

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity or quantum mechanics?

 

Thanks for help

 

Michale



#2 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 08:11 PM

The holographic principle



#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 26 March 2019 - 10:10 PM

To understand Black Hole you really need to use Beyond The Standard Model physics like me and Dubbel work on to fully understand what happens at the center but basically time ceases to exist, and there are no exits and it is concentrated mass, It is hard to explain but here is Black Holes in String Theory, but the Holographic Principal is part of that. http://web.physics.u...ings/bholes.htm

 

stringbh.gif

Hawking Radiation in String Theory Model

hawkrad.gif

 

You can think of Black Holes as a gravitational Standing Wave that vibrates to emit hawking radiation then shrinks. Here is about the holographic Principal and Black Holes. http://science.scien...nt/344/6186/882

 

F1-large.jpg

 

In String Theory Black Holes are a type of closed String in the gauge theory. So basically the inside of a Black Hole is a vibrating closed String that releases Hawking Radiation, though time does stop and curves back into the Black Hole inside there is no "Time" it becomes a spatial dimensions kinda.

 

slide-22.png



#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3000 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 12:48 AM

 

When we try to understand the center of a black hole what are we going to use?

 

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity or quantum mechanics?

 

Thanks for help

 

Michale

 

 

 

Well, it was relativity purely in the general sense that led to the modern understanding of a black hole. Black holes, being able to give up radiation through creation and annihilation at the boundary makes a black hole a semi-classical object. Since application of quantum mechanics to black holes is largely unknown outside of that, but you know, different physicists think different things. Some think a singularity exists (although it can be argued this is an antiquated approach). Some think no singularity forms and instead explanations from quantum mechanics include entanglement giving rise to wormholes inside of the black hole system, to say, another location in this universe or maybe a different universe entirely.... but that is largely speculation and some of those theories cannot be tested... if any at all.

 

Quantum cosmology is the realization that quantum mechanics still applies when a universe was very young - and in many respects, the early universe was very much like a black hole. If quantum mechanics applies there, why not inside of the black hole?

 

One aspect of quantum mechanics that might solve the issue of singularities, is that they cannot form since a particle cannot be squeezed into a length smaller than its own wave length.



#5 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 04:13 AM

Well, it was relativity purely in the general sense that led to the modern understanding of a black hole. Black holes, being able to give up radiation through creation and annihilation at the boundary makes a black hole a semi-classical object. Since application of quantum mechanics to black holes is largely unknown outside of that, but you know, different physicists think different things. Some think a singularity exists (although it can be argued this is an antiquated approach). Some think no singularity forms and instead explanations from quantum mechanics include entanglement giving rise to wormholes inside of the black hole system, to say, another location in this universe or maybe a different universe entirely.... but that is largely speculation and some of those theories cannot be tested... if any at all.

 

Quantum cosmology is the realization that quantum mechanics still applies when a universe was very young - and in many respects, the early universe was very much like a black hole. If quantum mechanics applies there, why not inside of the black hole?

 

One aspect of quantum mechanics that might solve the issue of singularities, is that they cannot form since a particle cannot be squeezed into a length smaller than its own wave length.

 

If there is a connection between Black holes like people speculate then the geometry of connected Black Holes could look like this.

 

151151921522299.gif.a75ed8f5306dc1511933

 

 And the inside of a rotating Blackhole something like this.

5a180a82b7c83_151151921522299(10).gif.ed

 

I did the geometry of a Black Hole Containing a Wormhole awhile back or a Wormhole Metric and these are what the graphic solutions looked like, unfortunately you can still not actually escape a Black Hole even if there is a wormhole present with the technology we currently have it requires you can travel faster than light.

 

If you want to read the entire post about it with the Invariant Quantum Gravity Universe Model, https://www.sciencef...his-screwed-up/

 

But those are possible pictures of the inside of a rotating Black Hole and geometry of Entanglement Networks possibly in Super-massive Black Holes.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 27 March 2019 - 04:25 AM.


#6 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 08:46 PM

I was going to model the event horizon as being analogous to matter reaching -c. Since matter can't reach c, it probably converts to energy at the event horizon. If it converts to energy, how does a black hole grow with matter. Is the type of matter in the black hole all gluons which are only matter when bound but convert to energy when unbound. Normally they are bound in a nucleus but a black hole has sufficient gravitational power to bind them as particles without a nucleus. But gluons, which are carriers of the strong force, are still subject to the Pauli exclusion principle which keeps all matter from dissolving into one big particleless clump. If gravity is enough to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle, then a black hole is one cold, hard clump because the more a force overcomes the Pauli exclusion principle, the harder the resulting matter becomes. But maybe gravity can't collapse gluons into a featureless clump. Maybe there's a whole hierarchy of particles that require larger and larger black holes to break their Pauli shells and clump them into a goo. That's why a neutron star is not a black hole, it doesn't have the gravity to crush the Pauli shells of neutrons.


Edited by ralfcis, 27 March 2019 - 08:48 PM.


#7 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 27 March 2019 - 09:50 PM

I was going to model the event horizon as being analogous to matter reaching -c. Since matter can't reach c, it probably converts to energy at the event horizon. If it converts to energy, how does a black hole grow with matter. Is the type of matter in the black hole all gluons which are only matter when bound but convert to energy when unbound. Normally they are bound in a nucleus but a black hole has sufficient gravitational power to bind them as particles without a nucleus. But gluons, which are carriers of the strong force, are still subject to the Pauli exclusion principle which keeps all matter from dissolving into one big particleless clump. If gravity is enough to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle, then a black hole is one cold, hard clump because the more a force overcomes the Pauli exclusion principle, the harder the resulting matter becomes. But maybe gravity can't collapse gluons into a featureless clump. Maybe there's a whole hierarchy of particles that require larger and larger black holes to break their Pauli shells and clump them into a goo. That's why a neutron star is not a black hole, it doesn't have the gravity to crush the Pauli shells of neutrons.

 

Well, the thing about a black hole the acceleration of gravity in a Black hole is the strongest force being at the speed  of light it can collapse the other forces before Black holes happen there is something called neutron stars and Black Holes collapse the Neutrons into a formless mass, fuzzballs are formless ball of gluons which is a proposed type of particle in the middle of the black hole as closed strings of the Strong Nuclear Force, but gravity inside a black hole is the strongest force even stronger than the SNF even the SNF doesn't reach C just very close to it if an object is accelerated to near the speed of light, the SNF is one of the reasons mass cannot go to the speed of light as Rest Mass opposes acceleration and velocity which is a function of the SNF. The Black hole does actually reach the speed of light with its gravity unlike the matter field of the Strong Nuclear Force thus it can actually collapse matter on itself even gluons possibly.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 March 2019 - 03:28 PM.


#8 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 06:49 AM

So to answer the OP's question, a black hole is probably made of uncollapsed gluon particles just like a neutron star is made of uncollapsed neutrons. Now as Dubble said, the limit of collapse is a particle's wavelength. So the smaller that wavelength, the more massive the black hole has to be to crush it. I'm saying a black hole is able to crush neutrons smaller than their wavelength and regular black holes may not be massive enough to crush  gluons. So black holes could be renamed gluon stars. 

 

So I now agree that matter can't reach the event horizon because it is converted to energy just before it because matter can't travel at c. Some of the energy joins the black hole as gluons (which are basically an energy gel state form of matter) and the rest escapes as a high energy stream. If matter's conversion into energy was done at the event horizon, all the energy would be converted to gluons because it would not be able to escape. Penrose's idea that we could park on a supermassive black hole because the surface would be far enough from the center, among other things he has said, makes me think he's a loon.

 

PS. I have done none of the math to back up what I'm saying so take it as no more than an opinion.


Edited by ralfcis, 28 March 2019 - 06:51 AM.


#9 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 02:46 PM

 

When we try to understand the center of a black hole what are we going to use?

 

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity or quantum mechanics?

 

Thanks for help

 

Michale

 

 

No one really knows, but there is lots of speculation, plausible and otherwise. I like the idea of the Planck star based on quantum mechanics and the HUP  https://en.wikipedia...iki/Planck_star However there are many other theories based on exotic particles being created inside the BH event horizon https://en.wikipedia...iki/Exotic_star An alternative solution to Black Holes in EFE is the Black Star https://en.wikipedia...ssical_gravity) . As you can see there are many theories. The one sure thing I think is the laws of thermodynamics must apply, ie as something is compressed it going to get very hot, Hot particles turn into plasma particles, and then eventually into Bosons I think. So a Boson Star is possible along with the rest of the ideas. Problem is there is no way of proving the theory unless perhaps in QLG a BH is seen to blow itself to bits.

 

Maybe via THEORETICAL Hawking  Radiation a BH could lose sufficient mass to reveal a Boson Star and something else inside the Event Horizon.



#10 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:36 PM

To me a gluon (boson) hole  makes sense because matter can't reach c and so it must convert to bosons at the event horizon  and is stored as bosons (gluons) inside the black hole. Physics always said it would take infinite energy  to accelerate matter to c. There's no such thing as infinity in physics but the very great finite power is enough to convert all the matter into energy and bring it over the finish line (which is the event horizon), in the form of energy going at c. Since no one really knows, I favor this theory.



#11 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:46 PM

To me a gluon (boson) hole  makes sense because matter can't reach c and so it must convert to bosons at the event horizon  and is stored as bosons (gluons) inside the black hole. Physics always said it would take infinite energy  to accelerate matter to c. There's no such thing as infinity in physics but the very great finite power is enough to convert all the matter into energy and bring it over the finish line (which is the event horizon), in the form of energy going at c. Since no one really knows, I favor this theory.

 

It is one of the more plausible explainations that they are Boson stars, which makes the Black Hole A large Boson such as a large Photon or Gluon. There is always that possibility of Black holes having Wormholes in the middle though as gravity sinks the area into deeper and deeper layers of the universe to Quantum Entanglement levels. The problem is we really don't know what happens beyond an event horizon.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 March 2019 - 03:50 PM.


#12 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:50 PM

I guess bosons can be compressed to within  a single wavelength. So why does the main big bang theory say it  came from a quark-gluon  plasma as opposed to just  a boson star?



#13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:51 PM

I guess bosons can be compressed to within  a single wavelength. So why does the main big bang theory say it  came from a quark-gluon  plasma as opposed to just  a boson star?

 

After the Big Bang Singularity that is what the contents of the Big Bang Singularity turned into Quark Gluon Plasma much like the Relativistic Jets of Quasars are Quark Gluon Plasma.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 March 2019 - 03:52 PM.


#14 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 03:57 PM

Ok but I'm still in favor of the universe being created from the big rip where particles were torn out of expanding space. Is it called the big rip? All I know of cosmology is what little I've interpreted from this forum.



#15 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 04:01 PM

Ok but I'm still in favor of the universe being created from the big rip where particles were torn out of expanding space. Is it called the big rip? All I know of cosmology is what little I've interpreted from this forum.

 

The Big rip is where the universe ends by particles being torn apart in space as time-space expands to critical levels that rip time-space apart, the fabric of time-space being destroyed. Personally, I agree that is a plausible ending to the universe just as the thermal death scenario.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 March 2019 - 04:02 PM.


#16 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2679 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 04:03 PM

Ok but I'm still in favor of the universe being created from the big rip where particles were torn out of expanding space. Is it called the big rip? All I know of cosmology is what little I've interpreted from this forum.

Origins project tries to bring it all into focus.

https://www.origins....vents/dialogues

https://www.youtube....o3Xhk9D1nYmlUaA



#17 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts

Posted 28 March 2019 - 05:08 PM

To me a gluon (boson) hole  makes sense because matter can't reach c and so it must convert to bosons at the event horizon  and is stored as bosons (gluons) inside the black hole. Physics always said it would take infinite energy  to accelerate matter to c. There's no such thing as infinity in physics but the very great finite power is enough to convert all the matter into energy and bring it over the finish line (which is the event horizon), in the form of energy going at c. Since no one really knows, I favor this theory.

 

The Pauli exclusion principle excludes particles with half integer spin (fermions) occupying the same point in space. Bosons (photons) however can occupy the same point in space. If particles decay into oppositely charged bits ie electrons and positrons and collide, they produce gamma rays which are bosons. Bosons can reach c instantly. Googling Pauli Exclusion Principle and not checking the link here is my first hit http://factmyth.com/...he-same-space/ 

 

For an extremely hot dense energy to exist at the centre of a BH(maybe singularity taking the maths to the extreme) , hot plasmas might convert particles into fundamental constituents ie up and down quarks quarks etc and ultimately into radiation gamma rays. Resulting in a Boson Star.