Black hole?

[interested]

A blackhole is formed when a very massive star after converting all of its hydrogen to higher elements , collapses under its own weight.
The sphere(star) becomes smaller and smaller until it reaches its schwarzschildradius(the minimum radius of a given mass to form a black hole.
The small sphere collapses further . It becomes so dense and its gravity is so huge that it breaks the fabric of spacetime such that the laws of physics no longer apply there.
The blackhole is formed around it because light cannot escape from its surface as the gravitational pull is simply enormous.
There is an apparent surface from which light cannot escape.This is the event horizon.

What laws of physics no longer apply inside a black hole?

The simpleton view I have, is as the pressure rises due to increasing mass the temperature inside will increase, as the temperature increases fusion reactions will take place creating heavier and heavier elements as they would in a star. As the temperature continues to rise will a plasma form from the matter inside the black hole? Would this plasma  consist of fermions? particles and anti particles that will annihilate and turn into radiation. Photons can occupy the same space unlike fermions, would this not moderate the gravitational force produced by a black hole? Hawking radiation can escape from a black hole does this not moderate its gravitational strength to some maximum. 

What would happen inside a black hole if all or some of the matter was turned into radiation, Big Bang perhaps?

What happens to the radiation escaping from a blackhole, can it form back into particles?

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by interested
spelling

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, interested said:

What laws of physics no longer apply inside a black hole?

As far as we know, the inside of a black hole behaves just like the outside. The same laws of physics should apply. But we can never test this, so I suppose we don't really know.

Not sure why you think the laws of physics don't apply/

18 minutes ago, interested said:

What would happen inside a black hole if all or some of the matter was turned into radiation, Big Bang perhaps?

It makes no difference if it is matter or radiation. It will all fall to the centre of the black hole.

19 minutes ago, interested said:

What happens to the radiation escaping from a blackhole, can it form back into particles?

Radiation doesn't escape from a black hole. If you are thinking of Hawking radiation, that is created at the event horizon. The photons from Hawking radiation could, conceivably create particle-antiparticle pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production) but I don't know if they would have enough energy.

[interested]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

As far as we know, the inside of a black hole behaves just like the outside. The same laws of physics should apply. But we can never test this, so I suppose we don't really know.

Not sure why you think the laws of physics don't apply/

It makes no difference if it is matter or radiation. It will all fall to the centre of the black hole.

Radiation doesn't escape from a black hole. If you are thinking of Hawking radiation, that is created at the event horizon. The photons from Hawking radiation could, conceivably create particle-antiparticle pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production) but I don't know if they would have enough energy.

I read the laws of physics do not apply inside a black hole so it raised an eyebrow and hence the question mark? I also read that we do not know what happened during the first stages of the big bang and read a bit about loop quantum gravity etc etc

I think It does make a difference if all the matter turns into radiation. Photons can all occupy the same space whereas fermions can not, no matter how hard you squeeze them, unless maybe the laws of physics break down and they convert into other fundamental particles with larger masses/inertias/energy ?.  If all the photons exist in a central point and cant escape there would be a lot of energy going no where. A photon which is stationery ie disappeared down a wormhole up its own field fluctuation may be like a particle, ie if a particle antiparticle annihilation can result in gamma rays, constricting them into a small space could result in them disappearing up there own field fluctuation and becoming particles, perhaps?

Thanks for the link, I think I may have read it before.

Would photons forced into the centre of a blackhole combine and increase in energy, until they had enough energy to escape?

Edited November 18, 2017 by interested
thanks and extra ?

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, interested said:

Would photons forced into the centre of a blackhole combine and increase in energy, until they had enough energy to escape?

Why would they increase in energy?

And however much energy they had, they couldn't escape. It would just increase the mass of the black hole.

[interested]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Why would they increase in energy?

And however much energy they had, they couldn't escape. It would just increase the mass of the black hole.

If the energy is concentrated on a hypothetical centre of a black hole regardless of all photons combining to form one photon momentarily or not, it is a lot of energy at the centre of the black hole and it will be very hot. Does a photon have a theoretical maximum frequency limited by the plank length? 

If all or part of the mass was converted to photons inside a black hole, does the black hole still remain viable, without mass. Could a black hole supernovae if its core converted into photons allowing the core to collapse inwards causing a Big Bounce rather than big bang https://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html ? It seems some clever people are thinking its possible.

Is a neutron star collision or supernovae of a normal star sufficient to cause the heaviest elements.?

Could the heaviest elements in the universe be from the centre of black holes? 

Why do galaxies have black holes at their centre? could they be relics of multiple big bounces?

Edited November 18, 2017 by interested

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, interested said:

Does a photon have a theoretical maximum frequency limited by the plank length? 

Not as far as I know. But we don't know what happens in a black hole, especially near the centre. We probably need a theory of quantum gravity to answer these questions.

Quote

If all or part of the mass was converted to photons inside a black hole, does the black hole still remain viable, without mass.

Mass and energy are interchangeable, as far as gravitation is concerned. So if it is massive particles or photons with the equivalent energy makes no difference to the mass of the black hole.

Quote

Could a black hole supernovae if its core converted into photons allowing the core to collapse inwards causing a Big Bounce rather than big bang https://phys.org/news/2013-05-theorists-loop-quantum-gravity-theory.html ? It seems some clever people are thinking its possible.

Again, not according to current theory (GR) but that may change with a theory of quantum gravity.

Quote

Is a neutron star collision or supernovae of a normal star sufficient to cause the heaviest elements.?

Gold and other heavy elements were observed in the recent neutron star collision. So, yes, it appears so.

Quote

Could the heaviest elements in the universe be from the centre of black holes? 

Again, not according to current theory (GR) but that may change with a theory of quantum gravity.

Quote

Why do galaxies have black holes at their centre? 

No one knows.

[interested]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Not as far as I know. But we don't know what happens in a black hole, especially near the centre. We probably need a theory of quantum gravity to answer these questions.

Mass and energy are interchangeable, as far as gravitation is concerned. So if it is massive particles or photons with the equivalent energy makes no difference to the mass of the black hole.

Again, not according to current theory (GR) but that may change with a theory of quantum gravity.

Gold and other heavy elements were observed in the recent neutron star collision. So, yes, it appears so.

Again, not according to current theory (GR) but that may change with a theory of quantum gravity.

No one knows.

Mass and energy being interchangeable is correct, but boson and fermion energy are not the same, one is moving at c the other is stationery. If a photon is stationery it becomes a fermion does it not. 

Thought experiment: if I travel at c alongside a photon with E = 511eV what am I looking at a fermion or a boson?

Gold is pretty light along with some other heavy elements https://www.lenntech.com/periodic/mass/atomic-mass.htm so no, it is not clear where the heavier stuff came from!

I posted this question under speculations because No one knows,  or at least google seems to run out of steam at gold and platinum level. 

You are most likely correct a theory of quantum gravity will most likely sort out most of these questions, but in the end will ever know, and who will care once Andromeda has its wicked way with the milky way. 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, interested said:

Mass and energy being interchangeable is correct, but boson and fermion energy are not the same, one is moving at c the other is stationery.

Energy is energy. And fermions are not necessarily stationary - they are just constrained to speeds less than c. The same is true for bosons with mass, of course.

Quote

If a photon is stationery it becomes a fermion does it not. 

A photon cannot be stationary. And it can't become a fermion. That would violate several conservation laws.

Quote

Thought experiment: if I travel at c alongside a photon with E = 511eV what am I looking at a fermion or a boson?

You can't. But it would still be a photon. And therefore travelling at c relative to you. (Which is why the thought experiment makes no sense.)

Quote

I posted this question under speculations because No one knows,  or at least google seems to run out of steam at gold and platinum level. 

I don't think that is the purpose of the Speculations forum.

[MigL]

The 'laws of Physics' ALWAYS apply.
It is our modeling that ceases to apply in some conditions.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'laws of Physics' ALWAYS apply.
It is our modeling that ceases to apply in some conditions.

Nice.

(But I guess when people say "the laws of physics" they mean our models. Usually.)

[Capiert]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nice.

(But I guess when people say "the laws of physics" they mean our models. Usually.)

Yup!

[interested]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Energy is energy. And fermions are not necessarily stationary - they are just constrained to speeds less than c. The same is true for bosons with mass, of course.

A photon cannot be stationary. And it can't become a fermion. That would violate several conservation laws.

You can't. But it would still be a photon. And therefore travelling at c relative to you. (Which is why the thought experiment makes no sense.)

I don't think that is the purpose of the Speculations forum.

Yes I agree but to answer your question.

A fermion can become a boson via collision with its antiparticle. A fermion in string theory is represented as a closed loop and a boson as a open loop. I was wondering if the boson could be constrained in a tight loop at the centre of a black hole and become a fermion again, the thought amused me, considering where matter is thought to come out of a singularity.

You previously stated " The photons from Hawking radiation could, conceivably create particle-antiparticle pairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production) but I don't know if they would have enough energy." Radiation is radiation can it create particle pairs if it has enough energy.? Can it do this inside a blackhole?

Light can not escape a black hole singularity. The question is what is the photon doing inside a blackhole when it reaches the centre, if it cant be stationery, if the energy is absorbed by mass, the mass will increase in temperature and any molecules will break down into fundamental particles eventually destroying themselves. This will continue until you have something resembling the big bang scenario. 

I agree you cant break the laws of physics, but they can be applied to what is observed. Why do galaxies have black holes at their centres? No one knows is not a good answer on the speculations thread, especially when everyone knows about theories of multiple big bangs originating from black holes etc.

Would Radiation coming from the centre of a blackhole or a blackhole disintegrating and losing mass be evidence that Quantum loop gravity is correct, and blackholes are remnants of  big bounces rather bangs? 

 

 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

The 'laws of Physics' ALWAYS apply.
It is our modeling that ceases to apply in some conditions.

Thanks for that

16 hours ago, Capiert said:

Yup!

ditto

[Strange]

Just now, interested said:

A fermion can become a boson via collision with its antiparticle.

A pair of fermions can become a pair of bosons. This conserves the various properties.

Quote

Radiation is radiation can it create particle pairs if it has enough energy.? 

Yes. That is why I included the link to pair production.

28 minutes ago, interested said:

No one knows is not a good answer on the speculations thread

The Speculations forum is for people to present their own theories supported by math and evidence. Are you ready to do that?

 

[interested]

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

A pair of fermions can become a pair of bosons. This conserves the various properties.

Yes. That is why I included the link to pair production.

The Speculations forum is for people to present their own theories supported by math and evidence. Are you ready to do that?

 

I am looking specifically at extant theories and ideas at the moment and have avoided speculating unless I have not received plausible answers. I would like to keep it that way for the time being.  Am I on the wrong forum, asking questions that might require people to speculate. If so what forum would you suggest? 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, interested said:

Am I on the wrong forum, asking questions that might require people to speculate.

This is a science forum. I, and most other people, will give you the answers provided by science. Sometimes that means "we don't know" (although there may be any number possible hypotheses out there). If you don't find "we don't know" (and consequently the possibility of discovering new things) to be acceptable and you prefer to make things up, then maybe science isn't for you.

[interested]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

This is a science forum. I, and most other people, will give you the answers provided by science. Sometimes that means "we don't know" (although there may be any number possible hypotheses out there). If you don't find "we don't know" (and consequently the possibility of discovering new things) to be acceptable and you prefer to make things up, then maybe science isn't for you.

My questions were based around things science appears not to fully understand or is in a state of flux on, like entanglement, dark matter, dark energy, and black holes, quantum gravity etc etc. 

I have the answers I wanted, mostly via the use of google but thanks for your efforts anyway. It was a bit like getting blood from a stone, but it was worth it.

I note you post prolifically on many threads on the forum everything from religion up over. Why would a scientist even consider posting on religion, it seems very strange to me. 

Out of interest how many science/physics forums do you post on including this one? Is that normal?

I will no doubt remain interested in physics for the for present. Thanks for the advice but like always your answer was a little off the mark. I will make my own mind up what I will or wont be interested in.

Thanks 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, interested said:

My questions were based around things science appears not to fully understand or is in a state of flux on, like entanglement, dark matter, dark energy, and black holes, quantum gravity etc etc. 

I have the answers I wanted, mostly via the use of google but thanks for your efforts anyway. It was a bit like getting blood from a stone, but it was worth it.

There is also plenty of pseudoscientific nonsense and rubbish on the Internet. For your own sake, I hope you got the right answers, not just the ones that apparently fit into your world view out look.

Quote

 

I note you post prolifically on many threads on the forum everything from religion up over. Why would a scientist even consider posting on religion, it seems very strange to me. 

Out of interest how many science/physics forums do you post on including this one? Is that normal?

 

There are many IDers, religious fanatics and others with an different agendas that take every opportunity they can to denigrate or attempt to invalidate science. They most certainly need to be put straight and informed in no uncertain terms that this is first and foremost a science forum, and as such everything comes under the scrutiny of the scientific methodology. .

 

Quote

 

I will no doubt remain interested in physics for the for present. Thanks for the advice but like always your answer was a little off the mark. I will make my own mind up what I will or wont be interested in.

Thanks 

 

That's nice. Just remember, we have plenty of reputable experts out there that know what cosmology entails, and what we at this time know with regards to the universe, and what is still speculated. Amateurish guesses to not really cut the mustard.

On 11/18/2017 at 11:26 PM, interested said:

What laws of physics no longer apply inside a black hole?

What would happen inside a black hole if all or some of the matter was turned into radiation, Big Bang perhaps?

What happens to the radiation escaping from a blackhole, can it form back into particles?

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collpase is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck/singularity level, where the laws of physics and GR as we know them are no longer valid.

 

All matter/enery that crosses the EH has a one way path to the singularity...no exceptions.

 

Nothing ever comes back out of a BH. Once inside it is lost forever. Even Hawking Radiation does not imply any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside.

Edited November 19, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

There is also plenty of pseudoscientific nonsense and rubbish on the Internet.

There is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia which seems to claim that black holes are part of some sort of atheist, liberal conspiracy.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

All matter/enery that crosses the EH has a one way path to the singularity...no exceptions.

Apart from anything else, the curvature of space-time means that, once you cross the event horizon, the singularity is no longer ahead of you, but is in your future. There really is no escape from that!

[interested]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

 

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collpase is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck/singularity level, where the laws of physics and GR as we know them are no longer valid.

 

All matter/enery that crosses the EH has a one way path to the singularity...no exceptions.

 

Nothing ever comes back out of a BH. Once inside it is lost forever. Even Hawking Radiation does not imply any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside.

Finally a good answer.

At last at least some one knows something about what laws dont apply inside a black hole.

 

11 hours ago, Strange said:

There is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia which seems to claim that black holes are part of some sort of atheist, liberal conspiracy.

Apart from anything else, the curvature of space-time means that, once you cross the event horizon, the singularity is no longer ahead of you, but is in your future. There really is no escape from that!

I thought big bangs and black holes were accepted by the catholic church, infact have you not written somewhere else on the forum the big bang theory was developed by a catholic priest.

It is more likely an atheist conspiracy to disagree with the church and state a single big bang was not the beginning of everything.

Being a expert, I guess you are stating loop quantum gravity is nonsense, and all those people working on it are educated idiots. But that is just one of many conclusions I can come too.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, interested said:

Being a expert, I guess you are stating loop quantum gravity is nonsense, and all those people working on it are educated idiots.

I have no idea why you would think that. I don't know much about loop quantum gravity specifically, but there are multiple approaches to quantum gravity and it will be interesting to see which (if any) work out. 

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

There is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia which seems to claim that black holes are part of some sort of atheist, liberal conspiracy.

But white holes exist, right? And they're basically good? Anything bad they do is probably because of a lone degenerate.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But white holes exist, right? And they're basically good? Anything bad they do is probably because of a lone degenerate.

Weirdly, part of their argument seems to be that scientists deny the existence of white holes because it sounds like "creation" (of matter, etc.) not because there is no evidence for them. But scientists accept the existence of black holes because ... liberals. Or something. 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Weirdly, part of their argument seems to be that scientists deny the existence of white holes because it sounds like "creation" (of matter, etc.) not because there is no evidence for them. But scientists accept the existence of black holes because ... liberals. Or something. 

I hadn't heard about this. I'm sure anyone who thinks this way has a vision of a cosmic vacuum cleaner powered by dark energy, sucking up dark matter into some kind of dark bag in a dark hotel of the universe. Does this extremist Wackopedia treat space-time as a conspiracy?

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I hadn't heard about this. I'm sure anyone who thinks this way has a vision of a cosmic vacuum cleaner powered by dark energy, sucking up dark matter into some kind of dark bag in a dark hotel of the universe. Does this extremist Wackopedia treat space-time as a conspiracy?

The odd thing is that much of the article seems to be reasonably accurate (it may be copied from Wikipedia, I haven't checked) but has these weird political accusations thrown in!

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The odd thing is that much of the article seems to be reasonably accurate (it may be copied from Wikipedia, I haven't checked) but has these weird political accusations thrown in!

More pop-sci damage done to the general public. When they report that the "laws of physics don't apply in a black hole", and black holes are everywhere, it makes it seem like disobeying physics is a common event. I can actually see why some folks who didn't get a great grasp of the basics get the wrong impression from the sensationalized stuff they read outside the classroom.