A black hole question/thought

[jajrussel]

I was thinking about photons, well actually about their apparent properties, which led to gravitational effects. Which then led to black holes, and eventually to questions about movement.

 

The basic question, why does a black hole move?

 

If it was moving when it formed, and there is no reason to think that it wasn't, I expect a predictable movement in that it has momentum.

 

It seems to me that it would take a tremendous amount of energy to effect it's course.

 

This seems to suggest that patterns should exist? But, then I start to think that if the black hole was part of a system when it formed, then I should think it's effect on the system, or the systems effect on it should only be the result of its creation, which should be a predictable part of the systems pattern. The black holes path is predetermined.

 

I tend to think of the universe as systems within systems which at some point should present a whole that we call the universe. A place much larger than the confines of my abilities.

 

Some would suggest that all paths lead to chaos. It seems to me that the universe isn't anywhere near that point yet. So, it seems to me that if a black holes movement noticeably changes from a predicted pattern, then there should be predictable reasons. This seems to imply that it's movement even unchanged should lead to a predictable past. From here a lot of questions start to form.

 

Do black holes have an average speed when they form? How much energy would it take to effect change in its predicted path given by it's system, as in out system influence? Any thoughts and comments would be welcome, to include where my thoughts are wrong.

[ajb]

Do black holes have an average speed when they form?

With respect to what?

[Strange]

Do black holes have an average speed when they form?

 

The star that formed the black hole would have been moving through (orbiting) the galaxy, in the same way as any other star. It will continue to do that after it becomes a black hole. There may well be binary systems where one of the stars has become a black hole; they will continue orbiting one another in the same way.

 

 

How much energy would it take to effect change in its predicted path given by it's system, as in out system influence?

 

Exactly the same as any other object with that mass.

[jajrussel]

With respect to what?

I thought it was a good question, but since you have answered with a question I need to figure out a way to reword it. Black holes form within pre existing systems. Is there evidence that there might be an average velocity required for the object of its forming within its system that leaves a conclusion that says that compared to other systems that have black holes, and systems with comparable mass, but no black hole, does the systems velocity rotationally, determine if, when, and where the black hole will form, and if so can an average velocity for a newly formed black hole be determined?

[ajb]

Gravitational collapse occurs when the internal pressure of the system is not able to balance the systems own gravity. So I would imagine you can say something about the average kinetic energy or speed of the 'particles'. I am not sure...

[jajrussel]

Gravitational collapse occurs when the internal pressure of the system is not able to balance the systems own gravity. So I would imagine you can say something about the average kinetic energy or speed of the 'particles'. I am not sure...

I was thinking of the black hole as a system within a system wondering if an average velocity might help to predict past and future of the system in which it resides.

 

I can imagine a system that develops a black hole where the rotational velocity of the system it develops in such as a star in a seemingly closed system collapses into a black hole, but that star is actually part of an open system, it is part of a greater system. It has directional velocity when it collapses. Not meaning inward, or outward as it forms. It is moving as it forms, it will continue to move after it forms. Is there an average velocity?

 

That thought that led to this point. A photon moves at c. It has no mass, yet it interacts with gravity? Or does it? If it follows a geodesic is it interacting? Or is its course predetermined which would seem to make any apparent interaction virtual, as in there is no interaction. The photon is not changing course. It was going that way anyway. If this understanding is correct it does not change the predictability of its path. We know enough to make the prediction. Even if that path leads to a black hole.

 

If we look at a system that has sufficient mass to sustain a black hole, yet there is no black hole can we predict a black hole in its future? I would guess yes, if there is sufficient mass. The where and when needs more predictability. Center point mass might explain the where. So, if, and where moves into the prediction. When is a matter of time, and velocity is closely related to time, so maybe a determined average velocity for known black holes may give a ball park figure provided nothing has occurred to accelerate or perhaps decelerate the black holes being compared.

 

How did I get here thinking about photons? It's just the way my mind works.

 

It seems I had inverted the meanings of open and closed systems,so I have tried to edit the post to fix the problem without having to rewrite the whole.

Edited July 21, 2015 by jajrussel

[jajrussel]

Okay, I'll put the average velocity of a black hole at formation to bed for a while. It is only one question, and the thoughts that led to it where likely the result of to much time working in the hot sun.

 

I have trouble envisioning warped space. Truth is I don't believe it. I think it is an illusion, and that leaning toward that illusion in explanation of what is likely a mechanical nature is a mistake. Learning about black holes might shed some light, so to speak. At the moment I have to go to work though.

[ajb]

I was thinking of the black hole as a system within a system wondering if an average velocity might help to predict past and future of the system in which it resides.

Maybe. You should be aware that although we have quite general statements about the formation of black holes, I do not think that very precise conditions are known. The exact conditions for systems that do not have a lot of symmetry are not known.

 

A photon moves at c. It has no mass, yet it interacts with gravity? Or does it? If it follows a geodesic is it interacting?

Interacting can mean two things here. First as a test particle a photon follows null geodesics; gravity influences the photon. Secondly, as a photon has energy-momentum it can act as a source of gravity.

 

I have trouble envisioning warped space. Truth is I don't believe it. I think it is an illusion, and that leaning toward that illusion in explanation of what is likely a mechanical nature is a mistake. Learning about black holes might shed some light, so to speak. At the moment I have to go to work though.

I am not sure how to respond, other than the mathematical framework of using curved space-times agrees with nature very well.