The start of a black hole

[Dan]

Hey everyone, I have a question about the start of a black hole. I read this in an article on the internet but it was a bit vague and I didn’t quite understand it and I was wondering if someone could help me understand what it said.

 

Basically it said that a black hole could be caused by an electron being pulled into a proton by its gravity which causes the atom to become unstable and it collapses in on itself until it becomes a singularity.

 

It sounded a bit weird to me but I’m really interested in black holes and I want to learn as much as possible about them so can anyone expand on it for me?

 

Many thanks

[Martin]

 

...Basically it said that a black hole could be caused by an electron being pulled into a proton by its gravity which causes the atom to become unstable and it collapses in on itself until it becomes a singularity.

...

 

Dan, I am not sure that you are going to get a satisfactory answer this time.

It might work out for you this time, but it could work better if you supply a LINK to the internet article that raised the question for you.

 

if you are interested in black holes, then "thing one" to know about is the socalled "schwarzschild radius"

schwarz means black and schild means like a Knight's shield, or the sign or label hanging out in front of a tavern that looks like a shield.

it means roughly "Black Label"

 

Mr. Black Label figured out HOW SMALL YOU HAVE TO COMPRESS SOMETHING BEFORE IT WILL COLLAPSE TO HOLE.

 

it is proportional to the mass. So the mass of the sun if we could squeeze it down to radius 2 miles (3 kilometers) would collapse to hole.

 

but a star with only half the mass of the sun we would need to squeeze it down to radius 1 mile (1.5 kilometers)

 

the less massive something is, the more tiny you have to squeeze it down for it to continue collapsing itself by its own gravity and crush itself to a black hole.

 

One problem with trying to make a proton collapse to hole is that the NATURAL SIZE of a proton is way bigger than its schwarzschild radius that you would have to squeeze it down to.

 

the natural size (to be definite, i mean Compton

wavelength size) of a proton is X times larger than the schwarzschild radius of a proton

 

and X is this awkwardly huge number that is roughly the square of 13x10^18.-------something with about 38 zeros. so the proton is really really bigger than the little thing you would have to squeeze it down to if you wanted to persuade it to make a black hole.

 

you might have better luck with more massive objects, and smashing them together very hard, to get compression. but with a proton (and something much less massive and more diffuse and spread out like an electron) you probably----I don't think---are going to have much success.

 

maybe someone else has some ideas.

 

I say, start at the basics and learn to calculate what the Schw. radius is for a given mass. the formula is simple enough. Do you want to know it?

[Spyman]

Formation

General relativity (as well as most other metric theories of gravity) not only says that black holes can exist, but in fact predicts that they will be formed in nature whenever a sufficient amount of mass gets packed in a given region of space, through a process called gravitational collapse; as the mass inside the given region of space increases, its gravity becomes stronger and (in the language of relativity) increasingly deforms the space around it, ultimately until nothing (not even light) can escape the gravity; at this point an event horizon is formed, and matter and energy must inevitably collapse to a density beyond the limits of known physics. For example, if the Sun was compressed to a radius of roughly three kilometers (about 1/232,000 its present size), the resulting gravitational field would create an event horizon around it, and thus a black hole.

 

A quantitative analysis of this idea led to the prediction that a stellar remnant above about three to five times the mass of the Sun would be unable to support itself as a neutron star via degeneracy pressure, and would inevitably collapse into a black hole. Stellar remnants with this mass are expected to be produced immediately at the end of the lives of stars that are more than 25 to 50 times the mass of the Sun, or by accretion of matter onto an existing neutron star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

Collapse

In larger stars, fusion continues until the iron core has grown so large (more than 1.4 solar masses) that it can no longer support its own mass. This core will suddenly collapse as its electrons are driven into its protons, forming neutrons and neutrinos in a burst of inverse beta decay, or electron capture. The shockwave formed by this sudden collapse causes the rest of the star to explode in a supernova. Supernovae are so bright that they may briefly outshine the star's entire home galaxy. When they occur within the Milky Way, supernovae have historically been observed by naked-eye observers as "new stars" where none existed before.

 

Most of the matter in the star is blown away by the supernovae explosion (forming nebulae such as the Crab Nebula) and what remains will be a neutron star (which sometimes manifests itself as a pulsar or X-ray burster) or, in the case of the largest stars (large enough to leave a stellar remnant greater than roughly 4 solar masses), a black hole. In a neutron star the matter is in a state known as neutron-degenerate matter, with a more exotic form of degenerate matter, QCD matter, possibly present in the core. Within a black hole the matter is in a state that is not currently understood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

[Dan]

I would love the formula Martin thanks.

[insane_alien]

if an electron impacts a proton(its an electrostatic attraction rather than gravitational attraction) it forms a neutron. this is seen in neutron stars where the matter is so compressed that the electrons get 'pushed' into the nucleus. still nowhere near as dense as a black hole though.

[solo]

I would love the formula Martin thanks.

That formula would be: [math]\left(r=\frac{2GM}{c^2}\right)[/math]

[weknowthewor]

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qastr_holes.html

has all the answers for you..

[Quantoman]

or you can just wait until the summer of 2007.

 

i think there are going to be some man made

black holes by colliding two proton together

near the speed of light.

 

if successful we then could have a better understanding

of inverted light... j/k

 

LOL

[resuccess]

SFN is a reely nice site dont you think what do you think about it and if you have iney cool science stuf let me now ?

[dstebbins]

or you can just wait until the summer of 2007.

 

i think there are going to be some man made

black holes by colliding two proton together

near the speed of light.

 

if successful we then could have a better understanding

of inverted light... j/k

 

LOL

 

that's impossible. According to the theory of relativity, nothing except light can ever attain the speed of light because then it's kenetic energy would reach infinity, which is unattainable.

[[Tycho?]]

He said near the speed of light.

[dstebbins]

it would still be extremely difficult. Exactly how close to the speed of light are we talking about?

[Quantoman]

dstebbins,

 

slow down dude i am sure the people involved already know the limitations

of mass.. LOL

 

i think the cia has the monopoly on misinformation also..not me.

 

I just regurge info that i read nothing more.

 

In switzerland NEAR geneva a large hadron collider is being build.

there they(10,000 or so sciencitis) plan to re-create a blackhole.

 

they will attemp this late 2007. (hopefully sooner)

 

by firing protons using supermagnets

in a 17-mile-long lhc accelerator.

 

the two beams of protons will travel on a collision

course NEAR the speed of light (not sure how fast exactly)

 

according to their studies as protons get close together

in effect, they increase the force of gravity.

 

hopefully the force of gravity between the protons

will become so strong that it will force the quarks

inside the colliding protons to coalesce.

 

not impossible, yes.

[dstebbins]

makes sense, but what about the danger? Black holes are among the most dangerous phenomena in the universe. We could get sucked up in this black hole by doing this.

 

Not calling you a liar. I'm just looking for information.

[D H]

i think the cia has the monopoly on misinformation also..not me.

 

I just regurge info that i read nothing more.

 

In switzerland NEAR geneva a large hadron collider is being build.

there they(10,000 or so sciencitis) plan to re-create a blackhole.

 

they will attemp this late 2007. (hopefully sooner)

 

A link to where you collected this bit of misinformation would be nice.

 

Here is what physicists really plan to do with the Large Hadron Collider:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider:

Physicists hope to use the collider to enhance their ability to answer the following questions:

Is the popular Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model violated? If not, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?

Will the more precise measurements of the masses of baryons continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?

Do particles have supersymmetric ("SUSY") partners?

Why are there violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter?

Are there extra dimensions, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?

What is the nature of the 96% of the universe's mass which is unaccounted for by current astronomical observations?

Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?

 

About the risks of a black hole and other beasts:

CERN performed a study to investigate whether such dangerous events as micro black holes, strangelets, or magnetic monopoles could occur. The report concluded, "We find no basis for any conceivable threat." For instance, it is not possible to produce microscopic black holes unless certain untested theories are correct. Even if they are produced, they are expected to evaporate almost immediately via Hawking radiation and thus to be harmless. Perhaps the strongest argument for the safety of colliders such as the LHC comes from the simple fact that cosmic rays of much higher energies than the LHC can produce have been bombarding the Earth, Moon and other objects in the solar system for billions of years with no such effects..

[Quantoman]

like what ^ posted..

 

very little amount of danger involved, the black hole is

suppose to be smaller than an atom.

 

not only that but this has occurred naturally for billions

of years as D H points out.

 

and the black hole is only going to last for a couple of

mirco seconds.

 

just to prove that extra-dimension exist. (and of course other stuff)

 

and thats about it.