Waste Deep in a Black Hole

[NOOBIE]

I have a few questions:

 

#1> Waste Down

If I'm slowly falling into a large Black Hole .. At some point I am waste and bellow is on the inside of black hole event horrizon and waste up is on the outside of the black hole event horrizon .. Can I feel my feet?

 

#2> Event Horizon Transitional Zone

Is there a transitional zone where light might not have an escape velocity .. But it can travel some finite distance away from event horizon before being red shifted away , or pulled/bent/etc in a ballistic like trajectory back ?

 

#3> Does gravity have a Minimum or Maximum?

If not how far / what are .. the end points so far that have been experimentally tested/verified?

 

 

[Strange]

#1> Waste Down

If I'm slowly falling into a large Black Hole .. At some point I am waste and bellow is on the inside of black hole event horrizon and waste up is on the outside of the black hole event horrizon .. Can I feel my feet?

 

You can't really fall slowly into a black hole. If you are in free fall then you will be travelling at nearly the speed of light as you pass through the event horizon. So you will be moving towards your feet much faster than the nerve signals can propagate up; so, yes you will feel your feet.

 

#2> Event Horizon Transitional Zone

Is there a transitional zone where light might not have an escape velocity .. But it can travel some finite distance away from event horizon before being red shifted away , or pulled/bent/etc in a ballistic like trajectory back ?

 

The popular explanation that light cannot escape because the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light is wrong and leads to exactly this sort of misunderstanding. The reason light (and everything else) cannot escape is because the curvature of space-time becomes so great that there are no paths that lead out of the event horizon. All paths are curved back towards the centre of the black hole.

 

#3> Does gravity have a Minimum or Maximum?

If not how far / what are .. the end points so far that have been experimentally tested/verified?

 

The minimum is zero.

As far as I know there is no maximum; it increases with mass.

 

All our observations are consistent with this. (It is possible, but increasingly unlikely, that the effects ascribed to dark matter are due to gravity not behaving as our theories suggest. But currently the evidence suggests that dark matter really is some form of matter.)

[NOOBIE]

Thanks

 

I've been told an object's mass increases as it approaches the speed of light .. it's greater kinetic energy contributing a relativistic mass component .. if true .. does the mass of the black hole itself increase as the objects inside it accelerate toward the center .. even if no new external mass is added ?

 

 

The popular explanation that light cannot escape because the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light is wrong and leads to exactly this sort of misunderstanding. The reason light (and everything else) cannot escape is because the curvature of space-time becomes so great that there are no paths that lead out of the event horizon. All paths are curved back towards the centre of the black hole.

 

Does a moving Black Hole create additional new Space-Time in it's wake as it moves forward?

 

What happened to the old Space-Time that entered the front of a moving black hole?

 

How does the gravity of the mass inside get out if there is no path that leads out ?

 

 

 

The minimum is zero.

As far as I know there is no maximum; it increases with mass.

 

 

If gravity can be infinately small with no minimum step .. does that allow for gravity to be used to make infinately small measurements ?

 

 

[MigL]

Don't mix up models.

If you're using General Relativity, gravity doesn't have to 'get out'.

Gravity is the curvature of space-time.

(the same curvature which keeps light from 'getting out' )

 

Gravity is more than likely quantised.

Edited September 28, 2015 by MigL

[puppypower]

Gravity exerts pressure as well as GR. Pressure can have its own impact in terms of not seeing energy leave a black hole. For example, the energy from the fusion in our sun's core, does not escape to the surface, not because of the curvature of space-time and GR, but because the matter above is opaque to this energy. It can only move up through convection and conduction.

 

If we took a hydrogen atom and added energy we can ionize the electron. The energized electron will drop down energy levels and give off the hydrogen energy spectra. But if we increase the pressure of the hydrogen, until we have solid metallic hydrogen, energy becomes part of the metal state; distributed.

 

With black holes one will expect pressure to push matter to beyond neutron density, into exotic states of matter where the substructure of matter comes out to assume phases where the boundaries of atomic matter are blurred. Any exothermic output from this, that touches higher layers of on deck neutron density, will causes this to sub-particle ionize, into the core phase.

[Strange]

Gravity exerts pressure as well as GR.

 

GR includes pressure as one of the factors contributing to space-time curvature.

 

 

For example, the energy from the fusion in our sun's core, does not escape to the surface, not because of the curvature of space-time and GR, but because the matter above is opaque to this energy. It can only move up through convection and conduction.

 

So that is irrelevant to black holes. Why bring it up?

 

 

If we took a hydrogen atom and added energy we can ionize the electron. The energized electron will drop down energy levels and give off the hydrogen energy spectra. But if we increase the pressure of the hydrogen, until we have solid metallic hydrogen, energy becomes part of the metal state; distributed.

 

Also irrelevant.

 

 

With black holes one will expect pressure to push matter to beyond neutron density, into exotic states of matter where the substructure of matter comes out to assume phases where the boundaries of atomic matter are blurred. Any exothermic output from this, that touches higher layers of on deck neutron density, will causes this to sub-particle ionize, into the core phase.

 

As this can only happen inside the event horizon, and therefore makes no difference to what is perceived outside the event horizon, this is also irrelevant.

I've been told an object's mass increases as it approaches the speed of light .. it's greater kinetic energy contributing a relativistic mass component .. if true .. does the mass of the black hole itself increase as the objects inside it accelerate toward the center .. even if no new external mass is added ?

 

Its mass does not increase, just its total energy. But that is a simplistic view based on special relativity and cannot be applied in the case of a black hole.

 

Does a moving Black Hole create additional new Space-Time in it's wake as it moves forward?

 

No. Why would it, any more than any other object moving through space.

 

What happened to the old Space-Time that entered the front of a moving black hole?

 

Space time isn't "stuff" that enters a black hole.

 

How does the gravity of the mass inside get out if there is no path that leads out ?

 

Gravity isn't like radiation. The black hole has mass and therefore curves the space-time around it. This is what we call gravity.

 

If gravity can be infinately small with no minimum step .. does that allow for gravity to be used to make infinately small measurements ?

 

Obviously, you can't measure anything infinitely small. But you can make measurements as small as you wish if you have instruments to measure it. The classical way of measuring G is to measure the gravitational effect of small lead spheres. That is pretty small.

[NOOBIE]

Thanks all

 

 

Gravity is more than likely quantised.

 

Wouldn't that mean there would be a 'quantum' or minimum steps of gravity ?

 

Its mass does not increase, just its total energy. But that is a simplistic view based on special relativity and cannot be applied in the case of a black hole.

 

Hmm

I was always told the exact opposit of that ??

I was always told relativistic mass (not rest mass) did increase as the energy increased. You say increase in energy doesn't do this. Weird claim ??

 

That also seems to 100% disagree with the possible formation of a Kugelblitz. (Which were always my favorite type of black hole). Sense they are a black whole made of only light energy, which only has relativistic mass of the increasing energy in that region to form the black hole.

 

No. Why would it, any more than any other object moving through space.

 

Because you said there is no direction it can go that gets out of the black hole. It has a way in but not way out. All path or direction it goes in never leads out.

 

Space time isn't "stuff" that enters a black hole.

 

Why would that make any difference?

There still has to be a path out , or it can't get out.

It doesn't matter what it is made of or not made of there is no path out to take to get out.

 

Gravity isn't like radiation. The black hole has mass and therefore curves the space-time around it. This is what we call gravity.

 

I don't understand why that matters ??

If there is no path of space out there is no path out. Even for the space dependant (distance) effects of gravity.

 

There would be no 'distance' to travel along a path of space from the mass inside to some point outside the event horizon , thus no curvature out at that distance from the mass inside either. That distance between mass inside to mass outside is a 100% path in space dependant thing.

 

- - -

There are two other things about this claim of no path that leads out, that seems wierd to me.

 

#1> There was a path that lead out before the formation of the event horizon. For that path to not just be bent, but for the path to now be gone entirely infers the space itself is not just bent , but torn/cut/etc. Than reattached at a different location (the singularity).

 

#2> If no point of the space inside connects to a point of space on the outside. Than there also should be no path to travel in space to get in from the outside either. The inside space is not connected to the outside space along any path.

 

??Weirds??

Edited September 29, 2015 by NOOBIE

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Puppypower, if you want to talk about your idea please do it in its own thread in speculations (and read the relevant rules and guidelines)

[Strange]

Wouldn't that mean there would be a 'quantum' or minimum steps of gravity ?

 

It would, if mass or energy were quantised. But there is no evidence for that currently.

 

I was always told the exact opposit of that ??

I was always told relativistic mass (not rest mass) did increase as the energy increased. You say increase in energy doesn't do this. Weird claim ??

 

The trouble is, describing the increase in energy as an increase in mass seems to cause more confusion. But if you want to think of it that way, feel free. It is simpler, and more accurate, to just take both mass and energy into account when calculating the gravitational effects.

 

That also seems to 100% disagree with the possible formation of a Kugelblitz. (Which were always my favorite type of black hole). Sense they are a black whole made of only light energy, which only has relativistic mass of the increasing energy in that region to form the black hole.

 

It is the energy (light has no mass) that creates a black hole in that scenario.

 

Because you said there is no direction it can go that gets out of the black hole. It has a way in but not way out. All path or direction it goes in never leads out.

Why would that make any difference?

There still has to be a path out , or it can't get out.

It doesn't matter what it is made of or not made of there is no path out to take to get out.

 

But that has nothing to do with "creating space-time". Space-time is just shorthand for the geometry of the spatial and temporal cooridinate system which is modified by the presence of mass-energy. You can't "create" geometry.

 

I don't understand why that matters ??

If there is no path of space out there is no path out. Even for the space dependant (distance) effects of gravity.

 

Gravity is the curvature of space-time. Space-time is curved by the presence of mass. Black holes have mass, therefore they curve space time. Gravity isn't like light; it doesn't need to get "out" of the black hole.

 

#1> There was a path that lead out before the formation of the event horizon. For that path to not just be bent, but for the path to now be gone entirely infers the space itself is not just bent , but torn/cut/etc. Than reattached at a different location (the singularity).

 

#2> If no point of the space inside connects to a point of space on the outside. Than there also should be no path to travel in space to get in from the outside either. The inside space is not connected to the outside space along any path.

I guess the only way to really understand this is via the mathematical description. I haven't seen a graphical depiction of this that makes it intuitive. (There isn't much about black holes that is intuitive!)

 

But that description is based on the Schwarzschild metric. There is an alternative (equivalent) description that might make more intuitive sense (as long as you don't take it too literally): http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

[puppypower]

!

Moderator Note

Puppypower, if you want to talk about your idea please do it in its own thread in speculations (and read the relevant rules and guidelines)

 

 

General relativity does not explain how matter changes phases within a gravitational field. This is explained with pressure. This is not speculation, but is connected to basic principles of physical chemistry. GR is a separate layer of the total gravity affect. For example, we can generate high pressure phases, such the earth's mantle phase; molten flux, on the earth's surface; surface space-time due to GR, using mechanical means like an anvil press. This phase is not dependent on GR. The laws of physics are the same in all references, with the same pressure able to generate the same phase.

 

Black hole analysis without pressure considerations are half baked and misleading. Maybe this discussion is only about the GR layer. I that case any discussion of pressure may be out of line. My concern is only talking about the GR layer makes one think they can enter a black hole, remain conscious, and come out the other side; worm hole, without being squished. This is not possible. If you entered a blackhole your matter would be pressurized such that no trace of any original proton, electron or neutron would remain.

 

There is a bridge concept between GR and pressure; entropy, which can explain why a good fraction of the energy generated by a blackhole does not exit a black hole. It may not explain 100%. Consider two space-time references. One reference is more expanded and faster; surface of the sun, and the other is slower and more contracted; core of the sun. To make this analysis easier we will get rid of pressure and matter phases and only look at space-time like we do with GR.

 

What I will now do is build two identical factories which both make identical cogs. Each factory makes one defect per hour. This defect will be a measure of factory entropy. I will now place one factory in each of the two references. Since time is running faster on the surface reference compared to the core reference, side-by-side, the rate of entropy increase is faster on the surface, since the number of defective cogs will accumulate faster, simply due to time moving faster. The second law indirectly implies an expanding universe, since an expansion of space-time makes the rate of entropy increase. Based on the entropy rate increasing as space-time expands, energy from the core of the blackhole is absorbed, at least in part, into the entropy rate increase.

Edited September 29, 2015 by puppypower

[Strange]

Black hole analysis without pressure considerations are half baked and misleading.

 

The only observable properties of a black hole are mass, angular momentum and electric charge. How is your obsession with pressure relevant?

 

 

My concern is only talking about the GR layer makes one think they can enter a black hole, remain conscious, and come out the other side; worm hole, without being squished

 

I don't think anyone thinks that (outside of science fiction and poor journalism).

 

 

If you entered a blackhole your matter would be pressurized such that no trace of any original proton, electron or neutron would remain.

 

That may be true. However, without a theory of quantum gravity it is unsupportable.

 

 

Consider two space-time references.

 

What is a "space-time reference"?

[Mordred]

 

 

General relativity does not explain how matter changes phases within a gravitational field. This is explained with pressure. This is not speculation, but is connected to basic principles of physical chemistry. GR is a separate layer of the total gravity affect. For example, we can generate high pressure phases, such the earth's mantle phase; molten flux, on the earth's surface; surface space-time due to GR, using mechanical means like an anvil press. This phase is not dependent on GR. The laws of physics are the same in all references, with the same pressure able to generate the same phase.

 

Black hole analysis without pressure considerations are half baked and misleading. Maybe this discussion is only about the GR layer.

You might want to study the Einstein field equations in particular the stress energy/momentum tensor.

 

GR, includes energy density to pressure relations and the degrees of freedom of each particle species.

[latex]t_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}\rho&0&0&0\\0&p&0&0\\0&0&p&0\\0&0&0&p\end{pmatrix}[/latex]

Edited September 29, 2015 by Mordred

[Mordred]

To add to the above you can get a better feel for how energy-density correlates to pressure in the following relations.

 

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

Edited September 29, 2015 by Mordred

[NOOBIE]

#2> Event Horizon Transitional Zone

Is there a transitional zone where light might not have an escape velocity .. But it can travel some finite distance away from event horizon before being red shifted away , or pulled/bent/etc in a ballistic like trajectory back ?

 

 

The popular explanation that light cannot escape because the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light is wrong and leads to exactly this sort of misunderstanding. The reason light (and everything else) cannot escape is because the curvature of space-time becomes so great that there are no paths that lead out of the event horizon. All paths are curved back towards the centre of the black hole.

 

From our point of view / on the outside / distance away / etc ..

How would it look any different to us if there was a transitional zone ?

 

Has there ever been a falsifiable test done (scientific method) , that scientifically demonstrates/rules out , that there is/isn't a transitional zone ?

 

Assuming there is one ... Does anyone have any pointers/links to find that scientific falsifiable test ?

My own meager searches have not found it.

[Strange]

There has been a lot of theoretical work recently on how quantum theory might affect our description of the event horizon. You could try googling "firewall paradox" to get you started.

[neutrinosalad]

The popular explanation that light cannot escape because the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light is wrong and leads to exactly this sort of misunderstanding. The reason light (and everything else) cannot escape is because the curvature of space-time becomes so great that there are no paths that lead out of the event horizon. All paths are curved back towards the centre of the black hole.

 

Is this an absolute or is there any combination of exotic matter, dark matter, physical situations that would be capable of warping space time and making it possible to escape the event horizon?

[imatfaal]

"Exotic matter" means you have entered purely speculative and hypothetical territory - so sure there will be some ideas but none of them will be accepted by a long stretch. Physical situations - none (I think); within the laws/theory at present the barrier is insuperable. Dark Matter interacts gravitationally (that's about all we know about it) so no it will not be able to escape across the EH in the outward direction - because as Strange pointed out above there is NO outward direction. All paths within the EH lead to the singularity (or whatever it is) at the centre - even those which seem diametrically opposed to the direction of the singularity

[neutrinosalad]

"Exotic matter" means you have entered purely speculative and hypothetical territory - so sure there will be some ideas but none of them will be accepted by a long stretch. Physical situations - none (I think); within the laws/theory at present the barrier is insuperable. Dark Matter interacts gravitationally (that's about all we know about it) so no it will not be able to escape across the EH in the outward direction - because as Strange pointed out above there is NO outward direction. All paths within the EH lead to the singularity (or whatever it is) at the centre - even those which seem diametrically opposed to the direction of the singularity

 

Thank you for explaining this. I understand what you are saying and agree with it.

 

This explanation makes sense based on our current understanding of the universe.

 

 

Still, when you think about it. If the event horizon is an absolute, this would mean that black holes are growing on a logarithmic scale.

 

Since black holes can only absorb mass and never release it due to the event horizon that means that they can only grow in mass. As they grow in mass, the extent of their gravitational pull can only increase and they would absorb more mass at an ever increasing rate.

 

When you think about it, the question that comes to mind is why do we exist? On a long enough timeline, all mass would have to inevitably exist within a black hole. Something like an event horizon is at ends with the current model of the universe and in someway would nullify something like the big bang theory.

 

There may be a missing element in this explanation, but I am not sure what it is.

 

I do not mean to take this thread too far off topic, just putting forth a stream of thought.

[Klaynos]

 

Thank you for explaining this. I understand what you are saying and agree with it.

 

This explanation makes sense based on our current understanding of the universe.

 

 

Still, when you think about it. If the event horizon is an absolute, this would mean that black holes are growing on a logarithmic scale.

 

Since black holes can only absorb mass and never release it due to the event horizon that means that they can only grow in mass. As they grow in mass, the extent of their gravitational pull can only increase and they would absorb more mass at an ever increasing rate.

 

When you think about it, the question that comes to mind is why do we exist? On a long enough timeline, all mass would have to inevitably exist within a black hole. Something like an event horizon is at ends with the current model of the universe and in someway would nullify something like the big bang theory.

 

There may be a missing element in this explanation, but I am not sure what it is.

 

I do not mean to take this thread too far off topic, just putting forth a stream of thought.

I think there are two things you should think about. The first is that we believe that black holes can lose mass via hawking radiation. The other is that a larger black hole will not necessarily grow at a faster rate. It depends on the local environment. If a black hole the same mass of the sun replace the sun we would continue to orbit it, the gravitational effect would remain the same.

[neutrinosalad]

I think there are two things you should think about. The first is that we believe that black holes can lose mass via hawking radiation. The other is that a larger black hole will not necessarily grow at a faster rate. It depends on the local environment. If a black hole the same mass of the sun replace the sun we would continue to orbit it, the gravitational effect would remain the same.

 

Ok, Hawking radiation was not something I knew about. I am looking it up right now.

 

And the environmental factors make sense. This has cleared up some of my doubts.

[Strange]

Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to mass and is insignificant except for very small black holes (that probably don't exists).

 

But another factor is that the massive amounts of energy released as matter falls towards the black hole gets heated up (by friction and complex interactions between the plasma and electric fields generated) means that a lot of the matter gets blasted away before it falls in. I seem to remember seeing that only a small fraction of the matter that encounters the environment of a black hole actually reaches the event horiizon.

[NOOBIE]

Thanks for previous responses.

Had a few recent thoughts and wanted a 2nd opinion , etc.

 

#1> If the propagation of the event-horizon outward (radius) can only expand at the speed light .. Total Diameter of the entire Black Hole max growth rate of 2C .. (Surface area for mass to enter could increase 4PiR²) .. Sense AFAIK there is not a similar maximum on the rate at which additional mass/energy can enter (to further contribute to the expansion) .. Am I correct to think that it is possible to have a (short term) imbalance as it takes time for the (speed of light moving) event horizon to 'catch up' ?

 

#2> AFAIK even a photon of light has a minimum size (wavelength) .. If an expanding black hole's event horizon catches up with part of but not all of a photon .. does it 'split' the photon ?.. ie the part inside the event horizon can't get out .. the part on the outside can still escape/leave.

 

#3> If 2 , than ... Would the remaining 'piece' of photon that did manage to escape/leave .. when split form a new 'whole photon' and be reduced in wavelength , proportionally to the amount of energy it lost to the part that was taken in by the black hole's expanding event horizon ?

 

Thanks