Answer my science question

[Sliver]

At the moment of the "big bang", science tells us nothing at all.

I was assuming that people reading the post would understand Planck Time. Yes I shouldn't assume. In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era refers to the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, tP, or approximately 10−43 seconds. So what I was saying was that at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, all matter we see in the Universe today was condensed into a space smaller than an atom, ergo, denser than a Black Hole or Neutron Star. There is also a theory for what was around before the Big Bang and that is String Theory.

https://phys.org/news/2006-03-string-theory-notion-redefines-big.html

 

[Angilion]

To be honest I don't believe him. In post 46 he said "It's only a theory". No true scientist would EVER say that because they understand that a theory in science is the highest level of proof of a phenomenon there is.

A scientific theory is an explanation of how a type of thing happens. It's not proof of a phenomenon. It's an explanation of how it happens. It's also, strictly speaking, never proven to be true. "proof" also has a rather different meaning in science than in general usage. Only pure maths can be absolutely proven and only in the context of it being mathematically correct, not in the context of it being applied to anything.

Of course a theory will eventually be treated as being proven if the evidence is strong enough, but (as you say yourself) there should always be an acceptance of the possibility of any theory being wrong or (much more likely nowadays) incomplete. Even when it explains all known evidence and has correctly predicted things that were not known at the time and every single one of a million experiments returns exactly the results predicted by the theory...it's still not strictly speaking proof that the theory is correct. Probably the most famous example is Newton's work regarding forces and movement, which met that level of testing for centuries before being proven to be incomplete.

But regardless of whether a theory is treated as proven or not, it's not "proof of a phenomenon". That comes before a theory, sometimes long before. I'll use the germ theory of disease as an example, since it's a theory you refered to. The phenomenon of infectious and contagious diseases was proven to exist a very long time before the germ theory of disease existed. You can sort of date the germ theory of disease as far back as ancient Greece at a stretch, but even that far back is long after people caught diseases and observed animals catching diseases and thus proved the existence of them.

I wouldn't expect a scientist to say "it's only a theory", but some might do so in a very casual context (and I have seen a few do so).

 

[Angilion]

I was assuming that people reading the post would understand Planck Time. Yes I shouldn't assume. In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era refers to the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, tP, or approximately 10−43 seconds. So what I was saying was that at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, all matter we see in the Universe today was condensed into a space smaller than an atom, ergo, denser than a Black Hole or Neutron Star. There is also a theory for what was around before the Big Bang and that is String Theory.

https://phys.org/news/2006-03-string-theory-notion-redefines-big.html

And what is your evidence that it was matter at that point in time? How do you define the word "matter"?

 

[Sliver]

And what is your evidence that it was matter at that point in time? How do you define the word "matter"?

I read Professor Kraus's book, "A Universe From Nothing". If you haven't read it I recommend you do. The initial state of matter immediately after The Big Bang was Plasma due to the super high temperature created by The Big Bang. Only once it cooled did electrons form attachments to protons and the first element of the periodic table was born.

 

[aardvark]

I read Professor Kraus's book, "A Universe From Nothing". If you haven't read it I recommend you do. The initial state of matter immediately after The Big Bang was Plasma due to the super high temperature created by The Big Bang. Only once it cooled did electrons form attachments to protons and the first element of the periodic table was born.

after inflation it was a super heated plasma, before that, nobody knows what form the matter was in, which is my point. We also don't know what form the matter is in in a black hole.


and if you really want to know i'm a chemist. (and yes of course i was using the word theory casually and if you think scientists don't use the term casually you don't know many scientists)

 

[Spook187]

I read Professor Kraus's book, "A Universe From Nothing". If you haven't read it I recommend you do. The initial state of matter immediately after The Big Bang was Plasma due to the super high temperature created by The Big Bang. Only once it cooled did electrons form attachments to protons and the first element of the periodic table was born.

Excellent book, i do find Angilion a bit like Castiel sometimes, a bit of cut and paste

 

[Sliver]

Excellent book, i do find Angilion a bit like Castiel sometimes, a bit of cut and paste

Yeah he is dishonest at times. I've given up replying to him as he's not making much sense and is persistently stating opinions which are demonstrably false, such as his spurious claims regarding matter in this thread.

 

[Angilion]

Yeah he is dishonest at times. I've given up replying to him as he's not making much sense and is persistently stating opinions which are demonstrably false, such as his spurious claims regarding matter in this thread.

Which claims are you referring to?

It might help if you could define what you mean by "matter". It's not a trivial or irrelevant question. If you can't condense it down to a few hundred words, that's fine. Just say so.

I'd also like to learn more about the structure of matter with infinite density. What's it made of?

 

[Cromulent]

I learnt something in GD! Miracles have happened.

 

[Illgresi]

This may well be two advanced for an answer I'll understand, but I am curious if anyone knows.
Question is.. What proof/math is there that a black hole is destructive. The physics says it forms a singularity where all matter that enters is destroyed. (or there abouts)
However I cannot understand or find any information on why this is the case.
Why for instance is it not logical to assume instead that a black sphere is formed, which still has mass and shape but light cannot escape due to the extreme mavity.
How can a blackhole grow if matter is destroyed, or is the word "hole" to ambiguous?

Anyone?

This may have been covered, and perhaps my understanding is entirely incorrect.

In a 4 dimensional perspective, a 'black hole' represents a massive pit within which all matter - including light (photons) - cannot escape. It is logical to assume this entity is spherical in nature. It is assumed at the zero point (the exact middle) of this singularity exists an incredible point mass. With this exceptional density, a powerful distortion in spacetime occurs, that looks to us like a hole. In reality, as a human appraoches it, the distortion of spacetime would lend the human to experience time more slowly. In physical terms, if one was drawn too closely to the point mass you would be stretched beyond the physical capacity of your body and torn apart.

 

[SPG]

Black holes also squirt stuff out .....

 

[danlightbulb]

Black holes also squirt stuff out .....

I know there is lots of maths theory suggesting this is the case but in practice how do the emitted particles escape the mavity of the black hole? They would need to travel faster than light to do so.

 

[hornetstinger]

This may have been covered, and perhaps my understanding is entirely incorrect.

In a 4 dimensional perspective, a 'black hole' represents a massive pit within which all matter - including light (photons) - cannot escape. It is logical to assume this entity is spherical in nature. It is assumed at the zero point (the exact middle) of this singularity exists an incredible point mass. With this exceptional density, a powerful distortion in spacetime occurs, that looks to us like a hole. In reality, as a human appraoches it, the distortion of spacetime would lend the human to experience time more slowly. In physical terms, if one was drawn too closely to the point mass you would be stretched beyond the physical capacity of your body and torn apart.

But a spehere is in 3 dimisions, a singularity I don't think is in 3d dimensions?
Just read that a black hole is very cold, you'd think it'll be insanely hot due to all the matter hitting the black hole at the near speed of light.

 

[Sliver]

But a spehere is in 3 dimisions, a singularity I don't think is in 3d dimensions?

Einstein tells us that time and space cannot be defined separately from each other. Rather space and time are interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another. So time is the 4th dimension.

Just read that a black hole is very cold, you'd think it'll be insanely hot due to all the matter hitting the black hole at the near speed of light.

At the Event Horizon of a Black Hole (The outer rim) matter gets super heated and can be blasted away from a black hole in violent spurts as the matter rotates and heats. Often gamma ray bursts are shot out into space from the accretion disc around the outside of the Event Horizon. Once matter crosses over the Event Horizon, mavity takes over and the matter is squeezed and compacted and is almost unable to vibrate or move. The consequence of this is that it cools. At and near the singularity matter is so densely packed that nothing moves and the temperature would be absolute zero.

 

[hornetstinger]

what happens when this incoming matter hits the massive amount of matter of the though?

 

[Freddie1980]

Black holes also squirt stuff out .....

Like Quasars? The black hole/quasar only throws it out because matter is falling into it faster then it can consume it. It's like filling a your dogs water bowl with a fire hose i.e not all the water will stay in the bowl.

 

[danlightbulb]

Like Quasars? The black hole/quasar only throws it out because matter is falling into it faster then it can consume it. It's like filling a your dogs water bowl with a fire hose i.e not all the water will stay in the bowl.

Doesn't make sense. Once the matter passes the event horizon it cannot escape. The effect of mavity isn't diluted the more matter goes in, it acts on each particle the same. Since the matter is compressed down to zero volume at the singularity then the black hole can never be 'full'.

One thing I can know for certain is that all the current theories are wrong. That's the problem with this abstract physics and why I stopped studying the subject after my first degree year.

 

[Angilion]

Doesn't make sense. Once the matter passes the event horizon it cannot escape. The effect of mavity isn't diluted the more matter goes in, it acts on each particle the same. Since the matter is compressed down to zero volume at the singularity then the black hole can never be 'full'.

One thing I can know for certain is that all the current theories are wrong. That's the problem with this abstract physics and why I stopped studying the subject after my first degree year.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is that particles pop up in pairs, one matter and one anti-matter, and immediately annihilate each other (so the net change is zero and thus things that should be conserved are). This, apparently, happens all the time. If it happens right on the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can fall into the hole and the other not. If nothing else happened, conservation would be broken and that doesn't seem to be possible. So the black hole must lose energy to the particles.

As far as I know, that's a huge over-simplification but the idea that black holes emit radiation is pencilled in as being entirely plausible although without any direct evidence for it. The rate of emission would be so extremely low that finding direct evidence of it would be well nigh impossible.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Like Quasars? The black hole/quasar only throws it out because matter is falling into it faster then it can consume it. It's like filling a your dogs water bowl with a fire hose i.e not all the water will stay in the bowl.

A Quasar is a feeding supermassive blackhole at the dead centre of a galaxy thats spewing out so much matter and energy its brighter than the whole of the rest of the galaxy put together. They only occured early in the history of the universe when there was still matter to consume thats why they're all extremely far away because far in distance also means far back in time. Every large galaxy has such a black hole including our own Milky Way galaxy.

 

[danlightbulb]

A Quasar is a feeding supermassive blackhole at the dead centre of a galaxy thats spewing out so much matter and energy its brighter than the whole of the rest of the galaxy put together. They only occured early in the history of the universe when there was still matter to consume thats why they're all extremely far away because far in distance also means far back in time. Every large galaxy has such a black hole including our own Milky Way galaxy.

Its not the black hole that emits the radiation in a quasar it's the surrounding orbiting material.

I love how you state that the milky way has a black hole at the centre like it is fact. It is not proven! The theory fits the observations, but that's not proof!