Black Hole=Gravity Well

[QauntumTunneler]

This is another hypothesis of mine, I'm 13, aspiring quantum physicist, and don't have the recourses to test any of my theories and hypothesise. This may also already be a theory/hypothesis, but nevertheless, here go's:

What if black holes are just gravity wells, or massive vortexes of entropy? Ok, so, what if as a star shrinks and dies it's gravitational field enlarges, which pulls in every quark in an immediate vicinity, which then collide with the photons, etc. explaining the theorised warp appearing around theorised black holes. Which would mean that black holes don't "go" anywhere, it's just everything that enters it's area gets... I don't really no the correct term, so I'm just going to say destroyed or disintegrated.

Again, I can't test this. It's just an idea I came up with.

[swansont]

This is another hypothesis of mine, I'm 13, aspiring quantum physicist, and don't have the recourses to test any of my theories and hypothesise. This may also already be a theory/hypothesis, but nevertheless, here go's:

What if black holes are just gravity wells, or massive vortexes of entropy? Ok, so, what if as a star shrinks and dies it's gravitational field enlarges, which pulls in every quark in an immediate vicinity, which then collide with the photons, etc. explaining the theorised warp appearing around theorised black holes. Which would mean that black holes don't "go" anywhere, it's just everything that enters it's area gets... I don't really no the correct term, so I'm just going to say destroyed or disintegrated.

Again, I can't test this. It's just an idea I came up with.

 

All gravity sources are gravity wells of various depth. That's a standard description.

 

I don't know what a vortex of entropy is, or what that means. As ajb has suggested already in another thread, go study materials and take physics classes. But this kind of conjecture really doesn't have much science in it. Furthermore, this falls short of what we require in speculations — we want something a little more fleshed out. Perhaps your best course of action is to tackle more basic parts of physics and ask questions about that. I know what you're doing is tempting, because we physicists have all been there, but in the end it really amounts to very little, because you absolutely need to know the foundations of physics in order to build up a model of what's going on.

[QauntumTunneler]

I know. But I find learning easier when I have input from others who have degrees, and can correct me. I joined this forum to talk to people who understand what I'm talking about, since no one in my family, and few of my friends can understand what I'm talking about. I do understand what your saying though, and I try to learn about this stuff however and whenever I can. I'm sorry if this post is an inconvenience. I don't mind if it's deleted because of this.

[Bignose]

I know. But I find learning easier when I have input from others who have degrees, and can correct me.

So, be careful here. "who have degrees" is at least drifting into a fallacy known as appeal to authority. Just because someone has a degree, doesn't make them right, much less a good teacher (as you will undoubtedly learn in your life experience in the not so distance future).

 

Not only that, but the people who who have degrees who have been through learning in many different forms are strongly suggesting that you still have much to learn.

 

This is perfectly ok, we all have things we have to learn. And if you have a sincere drive to explain your ideas, what better way to do that than to understand the language and methods that are known today. This will prevent you from using terms like 'vortex of entropy'. Because a vortex is well defined. Entropy is well defined. But putting the two of them together like this is meaningless with the current terminology. If you knew the current terminology you know that at the very least you would need to explicitly define a term like this and build a model of exactly what it means.

 

If you need suggestions on what to study, and various mediums and expositions on topics, this forum is very good for that kind of thing. If you are willing to learn, then you are in a very good place, because the desire to keep learning and help others is exactly what this forum is here for. You just need to be willing to do a little work. The concepts you need to study are not easy and will take some effort; you will have to accept that your intuition and ideas are almost certainly wrong -- but this is exactly what science is. You have an idea, you see how it fits with what nature actually does, and you go from there. There is nothing bad about having wrong ideas, you just have to accept that you need to correct them, and you'll be highly successful.

[ajb]

Classically we have reasonable descriptions of black holes within general relativity. Here gravity is understood as the local geometry, or curvature, of space-time. Loosley a black hole is a region of space-time so curved that light cannot escape this region.

 

Now, you mention entropy. There are some fascinating links, first thought just to be analogies, between black holes and statistical mechanics. You can start here

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics

 

but I am worried that you will need some more basic ideas from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics first.

Edited November 15, 2015 by ajb

[QauntumTunneler]

Thank you both. ajb, bignose, I will be sure to ask you both about terminology etc. in the future.