Black Hole question.............

[DEADspace69!!]

If I could accelerate a probe to "c" and send it directly at the center of the spinning axis "perpendicular to the accretion disk" entering at either pole at a black hole, would it pass the event horizon without being stretched and could it pass directly through to wherever, or would it be accelerated to the speed of light squared, essentially making it more than likely cease to exist because at that moment, "time" for the probe would possibly slow down and stop.

[Endy0816]

The black hole itself is 3 dimensional. There is no getting around the gravitational forces by going in at an angle.

 

Probe would also be flying into a relativistic jet. Be a bad bad day for the probe.

[decraig]

Spaghettification seems to be another misunderstanding of black hole physics.

 

Perhaps someone could quote Hawking in "A Brief History of Time" to see exactly how this became a common belief.

 

For a large enough object the tidal forces are weak enough that an object does not tear itself apart outside the event horizon. In current understanding of cosmology tensile forces due to dark energy would win the race, and take apart the atoms of which an object is made, before this would occur.

Edited January 11, 2014 by decraig

[imatfaal]

Spaghettification seems to be another misunderstanding of black hole physics.

 

Perhaps someone could quote Hawking in "A Brief History of Time" to see exactly how this became a common belief.

For a large enough object the tidal forces are weak enough that an object does not tear itself apart outside the event horizon. In current understanding of cosmology tensile forces due to dark energy would win the race, and take apart the atoms of which an object is made, before this would occur.

 

Undoubtedly the notion of spagettification is overblown - but it is not nonexistent. A centre of the galaxy black hole would have very minor tidal forces - but a two or three solar mass black hole has tidal forces that are significant.

 

Test particle would experience about 7e11 times earth gravity as he hit the event horizon of a two solar mass black hole - but clearly in free fall that would just mean it was travelling quickly and as there was no other forces involved it would just accelerate. A man of two metres tall would of course also be falling in free-fall and accelerating.- but if we model him as two 50 kg masses separated by a centimetre (around about the 1st lumber disc say) the difference in force between leg/hip section and head/torso section would be around 326,000 N (we use 50mm diameter steel wire rope for jobs requiring that sort of SWL). I think your poor astronaut would suffer quite a lot before they died.

 

The separative actions of dark energy are no way near enough to overcome gravity (even weakly bound superclusters can resist it) and gravity is paltry compared to electromagnetic.

 

That aside - the op is asking about an object falling into a black hole! The last thing you need to thing about is the accelerated metric expansion that is so weak that we only just noticed it and some people still claim is non existent

[decraig]

 

Undoubtedly the notion of spagettification is overblown - but it is not nonexistent. [...]

 

 

The separative actions of dark energy are no way near enough to overcome gravity (even weakly bound superclusters can resist it) and gravity is paltry compared to electromagnetic.

 

That aside - the op is asking about an object falling into a black hole! The last thing you need to thing about is the accelerated metric expansion that is so weak that we only just noticed it and some people still claim is non existent

I didn't imply non-existence.

 

No, one of the first things to do is compare the time it takes things to transpire.

Edited January 12, 2014 by decraig

[davidivad]

If I could accelerate a probe to "c" and send it directly at the center of the spinning axis "perpendicular to the accretion disk" entering at either pole at a black hole, would it pass the event horizon without being stretched and could it pass directly through to wherever, or would it be accelerated to the speed of light squared, essentially making it more than likely cease to exist because at that moment, "time" for the probe would possibly slow down and stop.

we do not really know what would happen. there are a few competing models that to attemt to explain interaction here but there is no observation available to us yet that can confirm or deny one in particular. my suggestion is this. we observe matter getting close and then we observe large amounts of energy getting spit out. my guess is that for something strong enough to trap light involves huge amounts of force.

 

how big is your black hole?

[DEADspace69!!]

The Idea for me is to prove that gravity is a direct response to the removal of space time between the neucleous of an atom and the surounding particles. It seems to me if you squeeze out all of the atomic space in an already dense object like a Neutron star the result would be a black hole. But it should not have gravitation field becuase it would have no charge, so I theorize that when matter is pushed into the black hole by the vacuum of space and released via a jet that the material ejected has actually been in time reset to zero time. Essentially recreating a new time for those particals. after they have been stripped of their current status of time. So I theorize that the universe is neither expanding or collapsing merely recycling over and over. I say this because due to the Hubble theory of universl movement of galaxies away from each other, would only make sense to me if they were not repulsed by the modern physics solutions but by the existance of these ejections of time. As I see it this relative time to zero time might also explain why some galaxies measured appear to be older and younger in our recent observations. Also when I look at time distortions like this, instead of gravity causiing universal movement, where time itself must find and attach to its sybiotic relationship of matter to exist, and that movement is made of pure time not gravity, just the influence of time and matter in space trying to come back together into the universal order that I see. So what I meant was to create a probe with the highest dencity matter I could think of, a perfectly spheroid of the purest carbon, calculatiing the time relative to the decay of whatever the size for the singularity, holding it somehow near the event horizon till all atoms were alligned towards the center of the black hole, this also should accelerate time for those particles, then repositioning it near at furthest point away from its axis of rotation to begin its path towards it. With the already time accellerated particles the black hole this may trick the black hole. Sending it thru either pole which I belive to have a small tube of no time kind of like the eye of a hurricane where there is no movement, and direclty into the black hole's center, where relative time and the reset to zero time event might transpier. So the result that I am hoping to achieve is to send a time stamp in, and measure its delta time when it reapears. Thus possblly proving my theory of no gravity to be somewhat a valid concept at least to me. I will explain the reason later for the carbon spheroid unless you already know. Thank you for reading this, who ever you are.

[Endy0816]

Charge has nothing to do with gravity. The jets are also not unique to black holes. They are more powerful due to the added mass of the black hole but have nothing to do with matter leaving the black hole.

 

Barring exit via hawking radiation; what goes in, stays in.

 

The accretion disc around a black hole and the shape of hurricanes are simply both caused by conservation of angular momentum. There is nothing akin to a low pressure area to fly through.

[DEADspace69!!]

Please look at my revised post on this, it is has been moved to speculation.....

[sheever]

we do not really know what would happen. there are a few competing models that to attemt to explain interaction here but there is no observation available to us yet that can confirm or deny one in particular. my suggestion is this. we observe matter getting close and then we observe large amounts of energy getting spit out. my guess is that for something strong enough to trap light involves huge amounts of force.

 

how big is your black hole?

i suggest nothing ever gets trough the firewall.its evaporating straight away.nothing ever gets inside the black hole.

the firewall is two layer,one is temporary and dependent the other one is permanent..

Edited February 23, 2014 by sheever

[davidivad]

i suggest nothing ever gets trough the firewall.its evaporating straight away.nothing ever gets inside the black hole.

the firewall is two layer,one is temporary and dependent the other one is permanent..

 

in my own opinion, a firewall is an example of the impact that computer programming has on the field of physics. this makes sense to me since they are trying to solve the problem of losing information. i have watched all the lectures of suskind only to recognize the many instances where he uses computers to explain things. this does not mean you are wrong. firewalls could very well end up being the most correct idea to explain black holes.

 

my only question for you would be whether or not black holes can grow in size. do you have a way to account for the various sizes of black holes?

[kawekakid]

Could space be what a singularity is made of?

We know that space warps. We know it creates the effect of gravity. We know that it has energy in it. We know that particles pop out of it. Could Space be a thing? Could Space be what a singularity is made of? Could matter entering a black hole be crushed so hard that it gets turned into space? Could a black hole be a compact ball of space? Could we be living in a singularity? When our space expands could it be more space being created from our universe/black hole feeding on matter? Does the space inside us expand as our universe expands?

[Dissily Mordentroge]

I didn't imply non-existence.

 

No, one of the first things to do is compare the time it takes things to transpire.

But what precisely does 'time' mean in this context?

Could space be what a singularity is made of?

We know that space warps. We know it creates the effect of gravity. We know that it has energy in it. We know that particles pop out of it. Could Space be a thing? Could Space be what a singularity is made of? Could matter entering a black hole be crushed so hard that it gets turned into space? Could a black hole be a compact ball of space? Could we be living in a singularity? When our space expands could it be more space being created from our universe/black hole feeding on matter? Does the space inside us expand as our universe expands?

All fascinating questions but I doubt I'll live long enough to see the answers, if any.

If the answer to your last question is the case we're going to have some really big problems with basics such as measurement.

[imatfaal]

Could space be what a singularity is made of?

Most people who look at cosmology do not believe that a physical singularity lies at the centre of a black hole. Penrose and Hawking showed that the equations of GR predict a singularity - but it is generally felt that quantum mechanical effects will prevent this. At present we do not have a theory that at one time can deal with both enormous gravity and very very small scale.

 

...We know that space warps. We know it creates the effect of gravity. We know that it has energy in it. We know that particles pop out of it. Could Space be a thing?

These questions really apply to spacetime - that is three dimensions of space and one of time. And the questions are verging on the metaphysical and thus unanswerable by physics; spacetime is a background, a place where things happen, an environment. One of the qualities of "thingness" is that things have a position, a most or less specified place, an environment within which they interact; can any of these be said of spacetime? No - spacetime is that which enables other things; it is not a thing in and of itself.

 

...Does the space inside us expand as our universe expands?

... If the answer to your last question is the case we're going to have some really big problems with basics such as measurement.

We have no problem with physical objects of a scale smaller than super-clusters being stretched by background expansion. Whilst expansion of the universe is seemingly powerful enough to separate us from galaxies with the gap growing faster than even light could cross - it is actually weak enough that the any electromagnetic bond is strong enough to completely and utterly overcome it. It applies to cosomological objects with such amazing effects because of the vast regions of space all of which are slightly expanding - on any scale that we know of single objects existing in there is no effect of background expansion as it is opposed by gravitational attraction and electromagnetism.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

We have no problem with physical objects of a scale smaller than super-clusters being stretched by background expansion. Whilst expansion of the universe is seemingly powerful enough to separate us from galaxies with the gap growing faster than even light could cross - it is actually weak enough that the any electromagnetic bond is strong enough to completely and utterly overcome it. It applies to cosomological objects with such amazing effects because of the vast regions of space all of which are slightly expanding - on any scale that we know of single objects existing in there is no effect of background expansion as it is opposed by gravitational attraction and electromagnetism.

Yes but the old question isn't answered. If all your standard measuring devices and all the entities (on every scale) you are attempting to measure are expanding at an equal rate, how would you ever know?

[imatfaal]

Yes but the old question isn't answered. If all your standard measuring devices and all the entities (on every scale) you are attempting to measure are expanding at an equal rate, how would you ever know?

 

You wouldn't - but that question does not relate to universal expansion as some gaps are expanding and others are not. If you could string an almost endless numbers of old fashioned metre rules between the Virgo supercluster and our nearest neighbours you would find that the over time the gap got bigger as measured by the physical metre sticks. The phrase universal expansion is, I now realise, a little confusing as it means that the background space of the universe is expanding but it does not mean what might be expected that everything is expanding.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

 

You wouldn't - but that question does not relate to universal expansion as some gaps are expanding and others are not. If you could string an almost endless numbers of old fashioned metre rules between the Virgo supercluster and our nearest neighbours you would find that the over time the gap got bigger as measured by the physical metre sticks. The phrase universal expansion is, I now realise, a little confusing as it means that the background space of the universe is expanding but it does not mean what might be expected that everything is expanding.

Yes, 'universal expansion' is a confusing phrase. Here I reveal my almost total ignorance of field theory and the fact I probably shouldn't be wasting anyone's time on a forum such as this. I find myself wondering about the space within atoms themselves and if this is, or is not, part of the universal expansion. Is it the case the space between a nucleus and it's electrons is a 'space' of a particular kind not subject to this 'universal expansion' and if not why do we not observe each atom expanding or more peculiarly, space within that field 'leaking out' .

Edited March 1, 2014 by Dissily Mordentroge

[ajb]

I find myself wondering about the space within atoms themselves and if this is, or is not, part of the universal expansion.

On local scales like that there is no expansion. Local forces overcome the global expansion of the Universe. In the picture of an expanding Universe you should think of the galaxies, or really clusters of galaxies as "point-like" objects. Their local gravitational attraction overcomes any tendency for them to be pulled apart by the expansion of the Universe.

[davidivad]

Yes, 'universal expansion' is a confusing phrase. Here I reveal my almost total ignorance of field theory and the fact I probably shouldn't be wasting anyone's time on a forum such as this. I find myself wondering about the space within atoms themselves and if this is, or is not, part of the universal expansion. Is it the case the space between a nucleus and it's electrons is a 'space' of a particular kind not subject to this 'universal expansion' and if not why do we not observe each atom expanding or more peculiarly, space within that field 'leaking out' .

 

space itself is quantifiable as a field. any effects of gravity cancel out the expansion.

imagine a huge field the size of the universe that contains huge amounts of energy per cubic meter. there is also an opposing force that is almost the same amount of energy. the difference between these two fields is very small but in the end you get an excess of it. this is dark energy.

gravity overcomes this field where mass is concentrated at a value above it. so, in places where there are only a few particles in a large area, the "background" is greater and expands.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

 

space itself is quantifiable as a field. any effects of gravity cancel out the expansion.

imagine a huge field the size of the universe that contains huge amounts of energy per cubic meter. there is also an opposing force that is almost the same amount of energy. the difference between these two fields is very small but in the end you get an excess of it. this is dark energy.

gravity overcomes this field where mass is concentrated at a value above it. so, in places where there are only a few particles in a large area, the "background" is greater and expands.

When you say space is quantifiable as a field does 'quantifiable' imply measurements taken or only a theoretical postulate?

[davidivad]

neither.

just because there is a field there does not mean we have the ability to measure it directly. we still haven't detected gravitational waves yet.

while i can prove nothing as an absolute fact, this is the best explanation i have found so far. what isn't a theoretical postulate at this point? i would refer to the discovery of the higgs boson to support my claim. i am claiming no more than the existence of the higgs field.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Fair enough. It's just my dim level of comprehension. I find it difficult to know if what I read in publications such as New Scientist concerns theoretical postulates or actual observations. The addiction physicists have for 'elegant' maths also puzzles me but then again that's more a problem of my perspective than theirs.

I appreciate your patience in explaining these questions.

[DriftGlass]

There are certain black hole solutions that are related to what the OP is asking. I think drawing the complete diagrams for these solutions shows that a timelike trajectory into a scharzschild black hole leads to another spacetime.

 

There is also another solution without the spherical symmetry (maybe the Reissner-Nordstrom metric??) where charge or angular momentum of the black hole is relevant. Anyway, in such a solution there is a way to avoid the singularity by approaching it from a certain angle, and entering a separate spacetime.

 

It should be noted that these models are idealistic and astrophysical black holes aren't as nice behaving.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

 

 

It should be noted that these models are idealistic and astrophysical black holes aren't as nice behaving.

Now there's a view I wish more scientists would adhere to instead of struggling to fit observation to their favourite 'elegant' equation.

Still, the idea of sneaking up on a black hole from a particular angle and finding yourself in another space-time appeals.

[Lost Cartographer]

What about a completely relative compression of space-time? i.e. a similar world inside the black hole - tiny and slow moving under immense gravity - involving no spaghettification or physical rearrangement - only reducing space between atoms...