Opinions on this theory.....?

Question

There are many theories, models, and controversies about the physics of black holes, the 'internal' structure where the laws of physics break down. I've thought about this subject since I first learned of black holes in middle school, then, some time ago, I read an article on space.com about 'quark' stars. Going by observational evidence of the properties possesed by suspected black holes, I came up with the following structure : Imagine if you will a star, let's say 10 solar masses, that has exploded as a supernova while the remains collapse inward. Since the mass is too great to form a white dwarf or even a neutron star, some other more radical transformation of the remaining matter must take place. Since we theorize that remains up to 3 solar masses form neutron stars due to the fact that neutrons could normally not be compressed any further, then perhaps these remains briefly pass through a stage of being a neutron star until the sheer mass overcomes the incompressibility of the neutrons and causes them to split into their component quarks. By this time, escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, and an 'event horizon' has formed around a seething mass of free quarks. As matter gets drawn into the gravitational well this has created, it too gets compressed into component quarks while still adding mass to the whole. Meanwhile, within this 'quark soup', some of the quarks recombine to form sub-atomic particles and are just as quickly broken down again, however, some of these newly forged particles manage to get trapped in the intense magnetic field lines and are able to escape through the magnetic poles. Such a mechnism of sub-atomic particle breakdown, combined with new particles being generated and shot out of the poles could also obey the Law of the Conservation of Energy, while avoiding the infinite density problem common to traditional models. Unfortunately, I'm not a knowledgeable enough mathmetician to calculate the details, but the outline makes for a worthwile idea.

the actual implication was that escape velocity foranything "inside" the event horizon would be superluminal, thus impossible...

I also don't recall any solid proof of the existence of "gravitons"

Answer 1

I think the idea behind quark stars is that there may be one more stage of degenerate matter beyond neutron stars. But this is still short of a black hole. Two things happen when the escape velocity reaches the speed of light. First, whatever is inside the event horizon loses all communication with the outside world, except gravity. All we can know of it is that it has mass and spin. The other thing is that the physics goes undefined - basically you start dividing by zero all over. At the subatomic level, too, calculated energies start going to infinity. So likely whatever physics it takes to describe this state is beyond quark soup and into something as yet unimagined.

Answer 2

No local speed can be greater than the speed of light.

Quark-gluon plasmas can form even in accelerators, they are nothing particularly exciting and do not prevent a black hole from forming. The asymptotic freedom inside a quark-gluon ball does not act in the right direction. It is much more like an anti-ideal gas. The more you push on it, the less it interacts. Which means that once gravity pushes, it does not encounter a disproportionate pressure that could hold it up.

Nobody says that there is anything "infinite" inside a black hole. What physicists are saying is that general relativity can not properly describe what is "inside" a black hole. The theory that potentially can has not been identified, yet. It has almost nothing to do with quarks, though. For quantum gravity there is basically no difference between the scale of a quark and the scale of a neutron. To gravitons both look boringly classical. Which is a good thing... it will make theoretical physics much, much easier once the right theory is found.

Answer 3

No, every single thing you just said was completely incorrect.

Except, I suppose, for your statement that you first heard about black holes in middle school, and possibly that you had read an article on space.com

But all of the rest is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Answer 4

I'm a little confused as to why everyone is slamming you. Absolutely everything you wrote sounds right to me. It reads like a summary of black hole formation.

Answer 5

No, that theory just will not work mathematically, and nothing can exceed the speed of light.