Do you believe that some of the more radical theories on Black Holes are at all accurate?

Question

I believe that if they exist at all, they are nowhere near as radical as they have been described.

It's just a star that has collapsed in on itself and become a lot smaller and a lot more dense. It's gravitational pull is astronomically more powerful than the average star and anything that gets close enough will get pulled into its surface and destroyed. I don't see the point in making such a big deal out of the fact that the object is crushed by the star's force before crashing into its surface. That just clouds the issue. It completely takes attention away from the crash into the solid surface. That coupled with the name "Hole" causes misunderstandings.

I doubt that black holes give off light. Not because their gravitational pull is so strong, but because they aren't burning anymore. They are also likely to be encased in a cloud of discharge that exists outside of their "Event Horizon".

These things are based on observation of our own sun, metals on Earth, and dense objects.

I never did like that tern "Event Horizon". That kind of title makes it sound fancier than it actually is.

Adder_Astros
Powerful Member of the House of Light.
[]xxxxx[];;;;;;;;;;;;;;>.
http://www.adderastros.com

To Mak:

By do some research, you mean read what somone else wrote, right. That's the problem, Homeboy. I detect flaws. The only thing that really sets me off is when a Professional Scientist says that a Black Hole is a portal to another dimension. The idea of time slowind down or speeding up in one, I feel, is dubious, but in the end might mess around and hold water (or not. Probably not).

You need to read the question, Bubba. You just did what you accused me of doing.

To Mak:

By do some research, you mean read what somone else wrote, right. That's the problem, Homeboy. I detect flaws. The only thing that really sets me off is when a Professional Scientist says that a Black Hole is a portal to another dimension. The idea of time slowind down or speeding up in one, I feel, is dubious, but in the end might mess around and hold water (or not. Probably not).

You need to read the question, Bubba. You just did what you accused me of doing.

Answer 1

Hi. The biggest issue has to do with escape velocity. In the vicinity of a black hole this equals the speed of light. You are right that the matter being crushed as it gets close to this vicinity gets extremely hot and gives off radiation. This is one of the only ways to detect them, the other being it's gravity effect on another object. We can measure the speed at which the close matter orbits the object. (Just for this answer let's call it a "Maximum Density Object" or MDO.) The closer matter gets to an MDO the faster it travels. This causes a Doppler shift in the light, towards the blue in matter approaching us and towards the red as it recedes around the MDO. This shift shows up as a "blurring" of spectral lines and is relatively easy to measure. The shift in spectral lines corresponds to velocity in a linear way and is predicted (and confirmed) by the theories. (Prediction and confirmation of the prediction is really the only true test of a theory.) Theory also predicts that as an object's speed get closer and closer to c, the speed of light, time starts to get effected. To us (far away from the MDO) this appears to be a slowing down of time as we observe the object. (This was also predicted and confirmed by accelerating particles with short lifetimes in particle accelerators. The particles "lived" longer.) The object does not "sense" this time effect and all seems normal. At some point the object gets so close to the MDO that time (as we see it) stops. We have not observed this yet so it is still theoretical.

The "event horizon", if it exists, is the distance where escape velocity = c. It is not possible to get information on any event that transpires inside this distance - hence "horizon". But I'll bet it's an interesting environment! Thanks for reading the rant.

Answer 2

Ok--the most "radical theory" of a black hole is that it even exists--get past that, and the rest is easier. Under Newtonian mechanics and assuming light has no mass, there could not be black holes. At worst, we would just have a super-dense star.

However, Chandrasekhar showed from Einstein's General Relativity equations (that have been well tested since) that a dead star with mass greater than a certain amount would collapse without limit (because the force of gravity is stronger than any force preventing contraction, including the electromagnetic forces that cause solids to be "solid")--it collapses not just to a small sphere, but to a point (this is where uncertainty comes in, but that would be resolved by a verified Quantum Gravity theory) could be anything from zero size up to Plank Length (with I think is one divided by 1 with 34 zeros, of a meter--might be 43 zeros). This is quite a bit smaller than a hydrogen atom, say.

The same General Relativity that predicts this predicts all the other things--infinite redshift of light from the event horizon (the surface inside of which all directions moving forward in time must point toward that singular point in the center, because under GR, spacetime is very bent around a black hole), slowing down of an outsider's perception of time (though to one falling in, they perceive no slowdown in time), the alternating stretching and compressing at 90 degree angles as you approach the singularity (and the directions keep changing, so at some places, you are stretched or compressed in "time" rather than space) and eventually you reach the singularity and you are essentially no longer part of the universe anymore--you don't exist.

Add to this Quantum Mechanics, which is also well-tested, and we have that a black hole must radiate, very slowly (Hawking Radiation).

Answer 3

There is so much unknown about the black holes. Here is something basic:

The laws of physics (gravity) can be seen operating at scales very large such as the earth, moon and stars and is completely predictable. for eg., we apply these lawys in launching voyagers etc.,

At molecular level such as nutrons and protons and electrons the strong and week nuclear forces dominate. We understand this technology and apply it in atom bombs/nuclear reactors.

However at sub atomic level (quarks and below), the Quantum physics is so chaotic and random that nothing is really sure. They seem to defy gravity and other such laws. For eg. we can not explain why light travels only through glass but not other solids!

Now all of these forces would have to be predictable and true. All laws must operate equally the same way every where.

Blackholes seem to give clues to unifying all laws since these huge objects get compressed so tiny (imagine bing bang) where gravity, electro magnetic forces, nuclear forces and laws of particle physics all co exist.

The sad thing is we still do not know how these laws are unified in these objects such as black holes.

Theory predicts several scenarios including some:
1. Gravitational leak (into parallel universes and membranes)
2. Existence of 11 dimensions
3. Time travel
4. Worm holes

Answer 4

Before you asked this question, I think you should have researched the subject. Black hole don't emit light of course. But they were never said to. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There gravitation pull is so strong that not even light can escape. That's not a radical theory, that's observation.

Event Horizon might be a fancy name, but I for one figure any cosmic anomolly such as a black hole deserves a fancy name. Besides. "point of no return" is soooooo played out.

The reason it's called a black "hole" is because whatever gets suck INTO (not onto) it disappears. There is absolutely no way a star can get sucked "onto" another smaller object and disappear. So the reason it's considered destroyed is because observably, it no longer exists.

Answer 5

The collapse of a neutron star is prevented by a force that tries to keep two neutrons from occupying the same space at the same time. This force is called degenerate neutron pressure.

If you accept the fact that this force is not infinite and there is no anti-gravity force in a neutron star, then the existence of black holes becomes inevitable.

Think about it: If the degenerate neutron force equals X, what happens when the weight of the neutron star crushing it together equals X+1?

Once it begins collapsing, what is going to stop it? It is going to become a mathematical point. An object without length, width or volume.

Answer 6

well... we have seen the effect of gravity on light : einstein crosses and rings have already been located in the sky... so, the fact that a black hole can suck up light wouldn't be surprising at all.

In fact, the existence of these enstein crosses and rings are proof that light can be prevented from going out of a black hole.


Now, black holes necessarily produce light, because they're the remnants of stars who still had fuel left when they collapsed into black holes : so the nuclear fusion fire is still burning inside them. You just can't see the light come out.


also, the event horizon refers to the line after wich you can't see anything since the light coming from that point would be sucked up by the black hole. And it's perfectly named: it's the line after which you can't see... just like the "normal" horizon you have when you look far away on earth: you can't see farther than a few kilometers because of earth's curve: light coming from the other side of earth can't reach you.
Same thing with the event horizon of a black hole. (much shorter to say "event horizon" than "black hole horizon", I think. And a black hole is an astronomical event... cf technical terms.)


and finally, the name black "hole" is perfectly right. Since light can't come away from it, it means that anything beyond the event horizon is invisible to us. It would REALLY look like a black/nothingness hole hung in space. Except, of course, for its gigantic gravitational pull and extraordinary electromagnetic field, it would merely be a hole in space. (only difference: it's a 3D hole, not a 2D hole like the ones you're used to)

Answer 7

I also do not believe that black holes give off light. The vortex is probably spinning faster than the speed light, therefore trapping it in its grasp. It might LOOK like it is shining, but we maybe instead see the rays being sucked into the vacuum.

Answer 8

What a relief to have someone come along at last to prove that all those stupid scientists like Einstein, Hawking, Penrose, et al just don't have a clue. I'm UNDER-whelmed!

Answer 9

your thoughts on black holes come from observing our sun? metal on earth? and dense stuff?

I am way glad we have smart people in the world :)

Answer 10

i think that the more basic theories on dark holes are more possible