Spaghettification probably rips even atoms apart, so although the fundamental particles still exist, any higher-level arrangement is destroyed. Black holes do emit radiation, as a consequence of quantum mechanics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Answer my science question
- Thread starter ChroniC
- Start date
+2
Andi.
Well obviously we know that, but its very little - they even have to spice it up with the redundant 'distorts space and time in the near neighbourhood. The closer you get to a black hole, the slower time runs.' - you mean like everything else with mass, duh.
ultimately we don't know what it is and what its composed of.
Wrong. We know what it is, it's a super dense mass of matter. So dense that light cannot escape due to the overwhelming force of mavity. Scientists have observed black holes eating up gas clouds, indeed any matter that gets too close is consumed. So wrong again as we do know what they are composed of.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
We do know what it is, but there is still a lot of theory, which is frequently changing. For example - we now know that hawking radiation and heavy atoms escapee with the fisure at around 66% the speed of light.
not really - it violates the current standard model.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,796
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
this
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,358
- Location
- Birmingham
I was more referring to when they are shown like this, which is clearly wrong.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...5XSAhUHIMAKHXkbDOYQMwgkKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8
I agree that if they are shown face on as a perfect black circle then that is correct.
I thought the reason why they were black was because the gravitational pull is stronger than the kinetic energy of photons, meaning they can't escape and are pulled into the black hole like any matter surrounding it. Not because the light "bends" back into a black hole.
See I understand what everyone is saying, i understand the science of event horizons, accretion discs etc. What I was curious to know is why scientist make the leap from the matter/particles being clumped together through extreme mavity to what is seemingly the common conception of a tear in space. Is there a theoretical reason behind that or is it just meer speculation. If the math breaks down inside a black hole why assume something that seems illogical and unrelated to what we normally observe in reality.
What seems more logical to me is that the huge amount of mass is ripped apart and crushed into something so dense, without the large distances between nucleus and particles that even after consuming thousands of stars it would still only be the size of a pea. However it would still have shape and size. You just would never be able to see it.
What seems more logical to me is that the huge amount of mass is ripped apart and crushed into something so dense, without the large distances between nucleus and particles that even after consuming thousands of stars it would still only be the size of a pea. However it would still have shape and size. You just would never be able to see it.
only some popular scientists actually believe this, mainly to sell a book - the good ones will simply tell you its a mystery and no one knows.
Its likely that we will never know.
It depends on what you mean by "black hole". The volume between the singularity and the event horizon, yes, we know some things about that or at least about its properties. We know nothing about the singularity itself. It can't be observed and it's outside the boundaries of current physics - that's the guts of what "singularity" means in this context. It's a thing with no size and infinite density...which makes no sense so that's not what it is. It's...a thing. May as well call it a "dunno", but "singularity" sounds better. It's certainly not matter because matter couldn't have infinite density. The densest stuff that can exist and is still matter is a neutron star, which is as dense as is theoretically possible for anything to be...and is infinitely light and fluffy compared to a singularity.
We are fairly sure that a black hole singularity forms from matter that is compressed with incomprehensible force until even neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and then...something happens and it turns into something.
Scientists reject that because as far as they know there is a limit to how dense matter can be. All the evidence points to that being the case and a black hole singularity is far, far, far beyond that limit. Infinitely beyond it. The maths for a singularity don't show it as having an extremely small size. They show it as having no size.
As far as I know, scientists don't share the common conception of a black hole singularity being a tear in space. The few I've seen commenting on it simply state that it's not known what it is.
EDIT: "seems illogical and unrelated to what we normally observe in reality" is a pretty decent description of a black hole singularity.
mavity is (as far as anyone knows, at any rate), curvature of spacetime. So light would appear to bend into a black hole. The light is still going in a straight line, but the reality it's moving on a straight line in is curved. A black hole singularity is a point of infinite curvature (which makes no sense) and the event horizon is the distance from it at which the curve has reduced enough for things travelling at the speed of light to not fall down it.
So you're both right.
It might make more sense scaled down to a more human scale - an object in orbit around the Earth. Ship, satellite, station, whatever. Strictly speaking, an object in orbit is travelling in a straight line perpendicular to the Earth. Go sideways at the right speed and you'll be travelling in a straight line round and round the curved spacetime and stay at the same distance from the Earth, i.e. in orbit. Too slow and you'll spiral down the curvature and crash. Too fast and you'll slingshot away.
Something sort of similar on a much smaller scale would be the "wall of death" motorcycle stunt.
Simple, hawking radiation.
Obviously the first law of thermodynamics dictates that entropy causes matter to return to its most basic state. But in a black hole its mass is converted to radiation that is then lost reducing the mass of the black hole.
The thesis is what make hawkings famous.
Not so. At the moment of the Big Bang, science tells us that all matter in the Universe was condensed into a space smaller than an atom. That is much more dense than a black hole or neutron star.