Black Holes... More likely "Black Stars"

[Lectrion]

Now most of us have heard of black holes and how they (in the common knowledge I've come across) have mathematical properties that should make them tiny in comparison to the event horizon if not infinitely so from the fact that it's gravitational pull is so great that it trumps over the other forces keeping it from being defined 3-dimensional, but I have to ask," Why does it have to be so different from the common model of our other heavenly bodies?" I've looked at the possibilities of what a black hole must be since i was the age of nine and the more i learned about forces and the capabilities of atoms the more unlikely it seemed to be anything like the infinite speck that seems to cross the minds of the people I've come across.

 

I believe that black holes should be really called "black stars". This is because for all we have come across we have only encountered objects that are as big as they seem, such as stars, planets, and moons. I can even say for sure that the magnetic repulsion of each particle within the black hole would easily prevent the infinite speck from occurring to such an extent that the object would most likely stay the size of the star that caused it to occur in the first place. What i think happens is that at a certain gravitational pull the particles the black hole is trying to release just get pulled back in causing an energy crisis for the surface atoms. So, what they do is absorb the light(which is an energy which atoms can absorb) chemically to replace the energy it's losing to the inner atoms under the surface layer, resulting in what we understand as a black hole.

 

Now this is only speculation using the information I've gathered so far, and since I'm not able to test my hypothesis myself...Any feed-back, missing information i can use to improve the idea, and questions i may not have covered are all appreciated.

 

Sincerely,

Lectrion

[swansont]

I can even say for sure that the magnetic repulsion of each particle within the black hole would easily prevent the infinite speck from occurring to such an extent that the object would most likely stay the size of the star that caused it to occur in the first place.

 

What is it that makes you "sure" of this?

[MigL]

Once a given mass is compressed inside a specific radius we ( and by we, I mean people who have actually done the calculations ) know of no force ( yes, not even magnetic repulsion ) that can resist the gravitational collapse. Whether the collapse goes all the way to a dimensionless point or not, is still unknown, for now.

At the radius of the event horizon, not even light ( or any kind of EM radiation/massless particles ) moves fast enough to achieve escape velocity.

[ajb]

... but I have to ask," Why does it have to be so different from the common model of our other heavenly bodies?"

Interestingly, our best model of gravitational phenomena, including the orbits of planets, cosmology etc, predicts black holes under some reasonable assumptions. The exact conditions for black hole formation are not known and maybe never will.

 

I believe that black holes should be really called "black stars".

You are free to rename things, but this may course confusion.

 

This is because for all we have come across we have only encountered objects that are as big as they seem, such as stars, planets, and moons.

If you mean that we only have evidence of macroscopic black holes, then I think we will all agree.

 

 

I can even say for sure that the magnetic repulsion of each particle within the black hole would easily prevent the infinite speck from occurring to such an extent that the object would most likely stay the size of the star that caused it to occur in the first place.

You need to explain this very carefully. I am not sure what you are saying as black holes result from gravitational collapse.

 

 

What i think happens is that at a certain gravitational pull the particles the black hole is trying to release just get pulled back in causing an energy crisis for the surface atoms. So, what they do is absorb the light(which is an energy which atoms can absorb) chemically to replace the energy it's losing to the inner atoms under the surface layer, resulting in what we understand as a black hole.

 

You now have to show that a black hole as understood in general relativity has very similar properties to your 'black hole' and thus we could make mistakes with interpretations of observations. Next, are you then claiming that general relativity is not a good model? If so you then have the huge agreement with nature to contend with. If you think general relativity is okay, then why does it not allow black holes?

[Greg H.]

I can even say for sure that the magnetic repulsion of each particle within the black hole would easily prevent the infinite speck from occurring to such an extent that the object would most likely stay the size of the star that caused it to occur in the first place.

I will refer you now to a snippet from the Wikipedia article on black holes, which addresses this objection.

 

 

In 1931, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar calculated, using special relativity, that a non-rotating body of electron-degenerate matter above a certain limiting mass (now called the Chandrasekhar limit at 1.4 M_☉) has no stable solutions.^[13] His arguments were opposed by many of his contemporaries like Eddington and Lev Landau, who argued that some yet unknown mechanism would stop the collapse.^[14] They were partly correct: a white dwarf slightly more massive than the Chandrasekhar limit will collapse into a neutron star,^[15] which is itself stable because of the Pauli exclusion principle. But in 1939, Robert Oppenheimer and others predicted that neutron stars above approximately 3 M_☉ (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit) would collapse into black holes for the reasons presented by Chandrasekhar, and concluded that no law of physics was likely to intervene and stop at least some stars from collapsing to black holes.^[16]

 

Once an object reaches suitable density to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle, simple chemical processes are not going to be powerful enough to stop it collapsing - the gravity is literally crushing the disparate parts of the atoms into the nucleus itself. In fact, the only reason neutron stars exist is because it takes so much more energy to break the TOV limit, that there is a discernable mass difference between that and the C limit before it.

 

Keep in mind that Neutron Stars are already collapsed stellar objects much smaller than their masses would suggest, so your argument that these masses should remain the same size as the star that created them is a non-starter.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Greg H.

[Strange]

Now most of us have heard of black holes and how they (in the common knowledge I've come across) have mathematical properties that should make them tiny in comparison to the event horizon if not infinitely so from the fact that it's gravitational pull is so great that it trumps over the other forces keeping it from being defined 3-dimensional

 

A couple of things...

 

A black hole is the event horizon not the singularity at the centre.

 

I don't think many people think the singularity is physically real. But without a theory of quantum gravity it isn't known what might really happen. It may be that something prevents it become zero-sized and infinitely dense, but without some theory to say what that is, you are just making wild guesses.