14 replies to this topic

[behavioralist]

Can a Black Hole form an accretion disk that has a microscopic or submicroscopic thickness and, at least at close proximity, extreme hardness?

(No sense googling this one; you see it first here. ---far as I know.)

[sepulchrave]

I don't think so.

To the best of my knowledge accretion discs for black holes are less a product of black hole formation (like the accretion discs thrown off by the ignition of new stars, for example), and more a product of black hole growth (byproducts of objects ``eaten'' by the black hole), so I don't think a black hole accretion disc would have the same decree of ``disc-ness'' as a planet's or star's.

Material can fall into a black hole from all directions, after all. If the black hole has a relatively large intrinsic angular momentum then there may be a preferred plane for accreted matter to settle in, but I think it would be much ``fuzzier'' than the ring of a planet, for example.

I also don't think a black hole accretion disc could ever exhibit hardness. To exhibit hardness the disc would basically have to be a solid, but I think the accretion discs of black holes are always falling inwards. There is no rigid ``core'' to a black hole (at least not in the traditional sense; a black hole will always ``pull'' and never ``push back''), so I don't see how any type of hardness could develop.

[behavioralist]

sepulchrave, on 20 November 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

I don't think so.

To the best of my knowledge accretion discs for black holes are less a product of black hole formation (like the accretion discs thrown off by the ignition of new stars, for example), and more a product of black hole growth (byproducts of objects ``eaten'' by the black hole), so I don't think a black hole accretion disc would have the same decree of ``disc-ness'' as a planet's or star's.

Material can fall into a black hole from all directions, after all. If the black hole has a relatively large intrinsic angular momentum then there may be a preferred plane for accreted matter to settle in, but I think it would be much ``fuzzier'' than the ring of a planet, for example.

I also don't think a black hole accretion disc could ever exhibit hardness. To exhibit hardness the disc would basically have to be a solid, but I think the accretion discs of black holes are always falling inwards. There is no rigid ``core'' to a black hole (at least not in the traditional sense; a black hole will always ``pull'' and never ``push back''), so I don't see how any type of hardness could develop.

Seems to me the normal limitations of angular momentum per mass could be exceeded, though. No telling how fast all that mass can rotate, except by how much energy it had to work off. And no real reason to assume the axis is not fixed relative to this metabolic charactersistic. By which I mean, it may appear to wobble by our metabolic sense, but it's metabolic sense is potentially more alien than a muon.

[Pyridium]

A black hole is no different than a star.  Cooler at the surface and hotter the further you go toward the center.  Our star, the Sun, is pulling everything it can with gravity and any matter that falls into the sun just adds mass and grows larger.  The gravity of the sun is also crushing downward toward the center, but at some point, like the start of the "core", the temperature and pressure allow for fussion to occur and the core produces so much energy that the "core" pushes outward from the center, only to be balanced by the gravity from the mass of the sun.  When the core stops producing energy, no more push, thus a collapse and super nova.

The core in a black hole does not make energy, it conserves it.  The temperature and pressure in the core is measured in the quadrillions.

Of course, you can continue to believe that a singularity is the size of the period at the end of this sentence and all matter in our universe came from that spot.

[sepulchrave]

behavioralist, on 20 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Seems to me the normal limitations of angular momentum per mass could be exceeded, though. No telling how fast all that mass can rotate, except by how much energy it had to work off.

Well it can't rotate faster than the speed of light... but there are no limits on the momentum of that mass, which I think is basically the same as what you are saying.

behavioralist, on 20 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

And no real reason to assume the axis is not fixed relative to this metabolic charactersistic. By which I mean, it may appear to wobble by our metabolic sense, but it's metabolic sense is potentially more alien than a muon.

I don't understand what you mean by ``metabolic'' here. Or it being ``alien''. It is matter moving along a geodesic, it is not that hard to understand.

For a material to be considered ``hard'' it must be resistant to compression. But a free flowing stream matter is infinitely elastic, any external force - no matter how slight - will change the geodesic, and the degree of change will increase with the magnitude of the external force.

In the case of a black hole, there is no ``hard limit'' to the distortions of a geodesic. For a rocky planet one could at least assume that geodesics could not be deformed below the surface of the planet, but the ``surface'' of a black hole (the event horizon) is infinitely accepting.

[Rlyeh]

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

When the core stops producing energy, no more push, thus a collapse and super nova.

Which our sun will never be.

Quote

The core in a black hole does not make energy, it conserves it.  The temperature and pressure in the core is measured in the quadrillions.

How did you arrive at this number?

Quote

Of course, you can continue to believe that a singularity is the size of the period at the end of this sentence and all matter in our universe came from that spot.

While you can continue to make crap up.

[Pyridium]

Thanks for the heads up.  I was just sharing some ideas in this forum.  Just my opinion.  One man's crap is another man's passion.

Yes, our sun will end up a white dwarf, sry for the confusion, I was talking about stars big enough to form a black hole.

LOL, when you get above a trillion degrees, it all becomes moot, lol.  Of course, there is a specific temperature that must be met and maintained for the "core" of a black hole is exist.  It is said that at the moment of the "big bang", the temp was around a trillion degrees.  I believe that our universe was cause by collision of 2 massive black holes and what escaped was part of the core from one or both of the black holes.  This super breakdown in gravity allowed the core to break apart and fuse with much of the positive particles creating all of the atoms of hydrogen in just a blink of an eye.  This hydrogen is what our universe was made from, yet 80% of the core particles failed to bond with other particles, hence dark matter, negative particles unbonded.

If in fact there was a collision, and what came out was a trillion degrees, what do you think the temp would be inside the core of the black hole before the impact?  A thousand trillion?, lol, that would be a quadrillion.

[sepulchrave]

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Thanks for the heads up.  I was just sharing some ideas in this forum.  Just my opinion.  One man's crap is another man's passion.

Fair enough, but I think you might get a more favourable reception if you preface your statements with ``I think'' or ``I believe''.

While I, you, and anyone else might have opinions about various topics, there is one version that is usually the ``commonly accepted'' one; and it is important to distinguish between that and your opinion (and of course the ``commonly accepted'' opinion should be cited).

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

LOL, when you get above a trillion degrees, it all becomes moot, lol.  Of course, there is a specific temperature that must be met and maintained for the "core" of a black hole is exist.

Why? How can you have a finite temperature with zero degrees of spatial freedom?

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

It is said that at the moment of the "big bang", the temp was around a trillion degrees.

The moment after the big bang. The singularity that was the origin of the big bang did not have a finite temperature (see here).

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

I believe that our universe was cause by collision of 2 massive black holes and what escaped was part of the core from one or both of the black holes.  This super breakdown in gravity allowed the core to break apart and fuse with much of the positive particles creating all of the atoms of hydrogen in just a blink of an eye.  This hydrogen is what our universe was made from, yet 80% of the core particles failed to bond with other particles, hence dark matter, negative particles unbonded.

In my opinion, that hypothesis makes no sense.

[Rlyeh]

Pyridium, on 20 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Thanks for the heads up.  I was just sharing some ideas in this forum.  Just my opinion.  One man's crap is another man's passion.

No, you made factual statements.

Quote

LOL, when you get above a trillion degrees, it all becomes moot, lol.

Not even close.
http://imagine.gsfc....rs/971111e.html

[Pyridium]

Thanks, Rlyeh, I looked up your link.  It says black holes are very cold, yet the matter falling into the black hole is 100's of millions of degrees.  That is correct, but when the smaller more energetic particles are sucked into the core, there the tempuratures could reach 1,000 trillion degrees.
From your link...
However, even though these things are very cold, they can be surrounded by extremely hot material. As they pull gas and stars down into their gravity wells, the material rubs against itself at a good fraction of the speed of light. This heats it up to hundreds of millions of degrees. The radiation from this hot, infalling material is what high-energy astronomers study.


New ideas come with a lot of skeptisizem and distrust, heck, there are only 7 billion people alive at this moment, and a new idea comes along and pooff...has to be shot down, doesn't make sense, not logical, too radical....well think about this,

from wiki
___
The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, who—along with R. Brout and F. Englert, and with G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble—proposed the mechanism that suggested such a particle in 1964 ^[9][10][11] and was the only one to explicitly predict the massive particle and identify some of its theoretical properties.^[12] In mainstream media it is often referred to as the "God particle", after the title of Leon Lederman's book on the topic (1993). However, the epithet is strongly disliked by many physicists, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism.^[13][14]
In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson, a type of particle that allows multiple identical particles to exist in the same place in the same quantum state. It has no spin, electric charge, or colour charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately. Some extensions of the Standard Model predict the existence of more than one kind of Higgs boson.
_____

For over 20 years, Peter Higgs was just a joke in the profession, until he was proven right.  Notice how the higgs boson is just a small "piece" of the proton, and it says the boson decays down to more stable smaller fragments of subatomic material.  From pure logic, these particles can be broken down further into more primordial specks of mass.

Einstein predicted that a black hole could not be formed because his formula predicted the singularity and to Einstein, that just made no sense at all.  Einstein was proven wrong.

Hawkings stated that all matter that entered a black hole was lost, no information survived.  A few years later he had to eat his words.

This notion of a "commonly accepted" idea just goes back to the caveman days.  Go with the flow?  If the village says the earth is flat, then the earth is flat.  Great thinkers do not go with the flow, they carve their own path.

I do hold science in great admiration.  I am not here to dispute any fact proven thus far, but when it comes to black holes, my ideas have never been spoken before and will someday be proven true or false, or a combination.

Edited by Pyridium, 21 November 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thanks, Rlyeh, I looked up your link.  It says black holes are very cold, yet the matter falling into the black hole is 100's of millions of degrees.  That is correct, but when the smaller more energetic particles are sucked into the core, there the tempuratures could reach 1,000 trillion degrees.
From your link...
However, even though these things are very cold, they can be surrounded by extremely hot material. As they pull gas and stars down into their gravity wells, the material rubs against itself at a good fraction of the speed of light. This heats it up to hundreds of millions of degrees. The radiation from this hot, infalling material is what high-energy astronomers study.

Thats right, the matter falling in, not the black hole.

Quote

New ideas come with a lot of skeptisizem and distrust, heck, there are only 7 billion people alive at this moment, and a new idea comes along and pooff...has to be shot down, doesn't make sense, not logical, too radical....well think about this,

Think about your lack of research.

[behavioralist]

sepulchrave, on 20 November 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Well it can't rotate faster than the speed of light... but there are no limits on the momentum of that mass, which I think is basically the same as what you are saying.


I don't understand what you mean by ``metabolic'' here. Or it being ``alien''. It is matter moving along a geodesic, it is not that hard to understand.

For a material to be considered ``hard'' it must be resistant to compression. But a free flowing stream matter is infinitely elastic, any external force - no matter how slight - will change the geodesic, and the degree of change will increase with the magnitude of the external force.

In the case of a black hole, there is no ``hard limit'' to the distortions of a geodesic. For a rocky planet one could at least assume that geodesics could not be deformed below the surface of the planet, but the ``surface'' of a black hole (the event horizon) is infinitely accepting.

Metabolic and alien refer to the fact that a bee does not buzz to another bee, even though it seems a universal constant to the human ear. A bee flaps, and gesticulates to other bees, while it flies, just like a magpie. It is profoundly social and communicative, always making a difference that, to our eyes and ears, is not being made at all; so that in effect we oversimplify what a bee is about. ---we credit it with infinitely less than what it is doing, how very evolved it is.

We tend to view the world as two kinds of physics, because we are lacking that theory of eveything which makes the one obect a fractal iteration of the other, and time is the misunderstanding. All mass is, in my view, an infinite amount of time caught at "the bottom" of layers of time; layers being iterations of the same sense of time, except that something has evaporated as the predominance of the upper layers. At each lower layer some law has ceased to dominate, so that many layers down a lot of laws have been abrogated.

Now a monstrous mass has lost its volume and decended into a place of fewer conscious conceivable laws, obeying laws we can only oversimplify in the most extreme way.

The mystery of things that are metabolically trapped in having an eternity to produce effects during the flash of  time we are seeing it. Something doing more than we can observe it to be is the most difficult concept, because we really are terribly confident that we are observing; that the small is intrinsically simpler to explain than the large.

Especially problematic when it is so nearly infinitely more. We may actually be seeing space-time in the making, and we wouldn't know it. Look for it at infinity, because it must be far away to be so mysterious (the small being so simple); when it's under your nose.

I expect it's quite true that the matter of a black hole has been deconstructed into something that is quite elastic as a point, a plasma. Velocity and form have to meet their limits as an ultimate deformation which reduces everything to something undiscoverably small, something we would find massless under other circs. But I don't accept the reasoning that nothing could configure itself inside the event horizon but that point. In my view something quite astronomical in scope, behaving at velocities we find inappropriate to astronomical size objects, can be there. Just because c is a law, doesn't mean it holds where there's no possibility of light.

We accept there is dark matter, for example. Where could it be hiding, if not where it "couldn't possibly be".

[sepulchrave]

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

For over 20 years, Peter Higgs was just a joke in the profession, until he was proven right.

No, Peter Higgs was never considered a joke by physicists. (Everything else you say about the Higgs' boson, incidentally, is flat out wrong.)

He didn't just spontaneously say ``what if there is an extra particle that handles this mass mumbo-jumbo''. (If he had said that, he would have been laughed at.)

He derived from the existing Standard Model Lagrangian how coupling the degenerate electroweak field with an SU(2) doublet field could induce spontaneous symmetry breaking creating mixing between the weak field and 3 of the 4 degrees of freedom in the SU(2) doublet field. This mixing manifests in the symmetry-broken Lagrangian as a term that is identical to an a priori mass term. The remaining degree of freedom in the SU(2) doublet field would be a new particle, the scalar Higgs' boson.

In simpler terms, he mathematically demonstrated a simple way of imbuing mass to gauge bosons, by including a rather generic extra field into the Standard Model.

This theory was so simple and elegant (well, simple to theoretical particle physicists, anyway) that most in the profession accepted that it had to be true.

You don't spend billions of dollars building increasingly powerful laboratory equipment (Fermi lab, LHC, etc.) to test a theory that everybody ``laughs'' at.

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Einstein predicted that a black hole could not be formed because his formula predicted the singularity and to Einstein, that just made no sense at all.  Einstein was proven wrong.

I am not sure this is true either, since it was Schwarzschild who first provided the solution for a black hole, and Einstein was quite interested in his work (see here).

Secondly, nobody has ever detected a gravitational singularity; and quantum mechanics generally prevents singularities from forming (electrical singularities don't really exist, despite the point-like nature of charged particles, for example).

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Hawkings stated that all matter that entered a black hole was lost, no information survived.  A few years later he had to eat his words.

Hawking was attempting to derive results of what happens in the intersection between quantum mechanics and general relativity; something we still don't really understand. He made a bold prediction and later decided it was wrong. There still is no experimental proof either way, and a rigorous theoretical proof is still lacking.

These issues you bring up are salient because they are all examples of great thinkers carefully extrapolating a new idea from existing knowledge, and then extending that new idea to its logical conclusion.

For example, thinking about what would happen when two supermassive black holes collide is a fine thing to do. But to blithely state that ``this is how the Universe was created'', without offering any explanation for how matter could get free from two supermassive black holes (which you think would be even more difficult than getting free from just one) does not count as ``theorizing'' - rather it is ``fantasizing''.

Here is a relevant example, I think: Several people had suggested that continents can move, and that Africa and South America used to ``fit together''. These people were laughed at - and rightly so - because they did not provide any mechanism for this to occur. Later, obviously, continental drift became a valid theory after Wegener developed it in detail. Nobody considers Ortelius to be the ``father of continental drift'' because he did nothing more than idly speculate that the similarities in continent shape could be due to more than coincidence.

behavioralist, on 21 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

I expect it's quite true that the matter of a black hole has been deconstructed into something that is quite elastic as a point, a plasma. Velocity and form have to meet their limits as an ultimate deformation which reduces everything to something undiscoverably small, something we would find massless under other circs. But I don't accept the reasoning that nothing could configure itself inside the event horizon but that point.

Things can definitely have a ``configuration'' inside the event horizon.

For a large enough black hole it is possible for things inside the event horizon to have stable orbits around the core, and whether the core is truly a gravitational singularity or a ``quantum compact object'' of finite size is still somewhat debated.

My point is that nothing inside the event horizon can get out (except for static electromagnetic and gravitational fields), and everything inside the event horizon is basically invisible.

Matter outside the event horizon cannot ``brace'' itself against matter inside the event horizon; and so everything outside the event horizon is compressible. The visible part of the accretion disc is obviously outside the event horizon, so I believe this portion of the disc could not exhibit ``hardness''.

[Pyridium]

http://io9.com/59486...k-holes-collide

Watch these 2 videos.  If a black hole is "empty", then where is all this matter (gas) coming from when 2 black holes merge?  This is exactly how I predicted black holes to behave when they got locked into a gravitational orbit with each other.  If each had an infinite singularity, the merger would take place totally in the dark with no energy or light exposed.

The latest map of our universe shows something more like a still picture of a stroke of lightning with lots of branches eminating from the main stem.  This implies that the big bang was actually a huge whirlwind or tornado effect and not a huge expansion from a spot no larger than an atom.  This would show as a balloon effect where the matter from the big bang forms the shell of the expanding balloon.

I believe the big bang was just a big accident.  2 black holes failing to merge because they fail to form an orbit.  This causes an impact, not a merger.  With an impact you would get a tornado effect, exactly what our current star and galaxy maps prove today.  When people think of the universe as a balloon shape, they are confusing the map for the background radiation which only shows temperature in a circular form.

We know that the Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in the center and we have tracked stars orbiting it to know it is a black hole.  We have identified most galaxies as having a central massive black hole.  Each galaxy may have trillions of black holes wandering around picking up any material it can.  Just as a galaxy has a dominant black hole, our universe has a dominant universal black hole in the center of our universe.  It is the left over material after the crash that was able to establish a new single "universal" black hole.  I can imagine these universal black holes separated by trillions of light years apart from each other.  It is only a matter of time before 2 of these meet up and do the merger dance...big bangs only occur about 0.01% of the time.

All that I can say is that black holes are my specialty and passion.  I do not offer any of this bull crap as truth, just a plausible possibility.

[sepulchrave]

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

Watch these 2 videos.  If a black hole is "empty", then where is all this matter (gas) coming from when 2 black holes merge?

I watched the videos. Then I read the article. And then I read the original NASA statement, and skimmed through the original scientific paper on the topic.

Funny thing about reading... sometimes you can find the answers to your questions.

The matter didn't come from anywhere. In the first video, the magnetized black holes were initially surrounded by a cloud of plasma. The colour in the video corresponds to the density of the plasma. The video shows how the dynamics of these plasma accretion clouds as the black holes merge.

The second video doesn't show any matter, only a pictorial representation of the gravitational disturbances predicted from the event.

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

This is exactly how I predicted black holes to behave when they got locked into a gravitational orbit with each other.  If each had an infinite singularity, the merger would take place totally in the dark with no energy or light exposed.

The merger basically did take place in the dark. The colours in the video do not represent the colours you would see. While matter jets were formed during the merger of the two black holes, the original scientific paper makes it clear these are not relativistic jets, so they may not even glow very brightly (I am not sure about this though).

Any actual light or radiation from the merger would depend on the density of the original accretion discs. Since the merger is obviously quite energetic, it is plausible that the accretion discs could heat up enough to glow brightly, and I certainly think a relativistic matter jet would be easily observable.

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

The latest map of our universe shows something more like a still picture of a stroke of lightning with lots of branches eminating from the main stem.  This implies that the big bang was actually a huge whirlwind or tornado effect and not a huge expansion from a spot no larger than an atom.  This would show as a balloon effect where the matter from the big bang forms the shell of the expanding balloon.

No it doesn't.

Pyridium, on 21 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

All that I can say is that black holes are my specialty and passion.  I do not offer any of this bull crap as truth, just a plausible possibility.

If they are your specialty, perhaps you can read more of the abundant literature available on the subject? Wikipedia would be a good place to start.