Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

The cosmos at our fingertips.
User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes don't bite

Postby Chris Peterson » Thu May 18, 2017 4:37 am

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Art can answer your science question, but it isn't at all the case that any laws of mathematics break down inside black holes. Math works just fine. The problem comes in reconciling the math with physical reality. Our physical laws appear to break down when we have things like singularities (which math handles without difficulty).

Thanks Chris .. I examined your answer through google, and at this stage I have a picture of a 'breakdown' being all possible answers leading to infinity .. so yes, reconciling infinity to physical reality is quite a task. If you think you could add to that picture, clarify it, whatever, please feel free to do so.

There's a Nobel in the offing for anybody that pulls that off.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes don't bite

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Thu May 18, 2017 7:36 pm

neufer wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
neufer wrote:Nearly forever for observers on the outside.

But... those observers on the outside should also note that time nearly stops for objects falling into the event horizon.

So... do those observers who fall into the BH get to observe the black hole evaporate (as a blinding firewall) :?:

Neufer .. the known laws of mathematics are said to break down in the Black Hole or even at the event horizon .. what do you think of the thought that material beyond those points may be transformed into a reverse state .. that matter could become anti-matter, and through a wormhole or other mechanism enter Voids as the anti-matter/anti-gravity 'material' causing the Voids expansions?

    1) I don't understand your question.
    2) I can't even answer my own question.
Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.


My question was, basically, could matter fall into a Black Hole and re-emerge in a Void as anti-matter. The voids are said to be expanding .. their content has to come from somewhere .. matter falling into a Black Hole has to go somewhere even if it's turned into energy .. perhaps there is no singularity in a Black Hole, but there is an escape into a Void.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13781
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Blackholes don't bite

Postby neufer » Thu May 18, 2017 8:15 pm

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
neufer wrote:
Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.

My question was, basically, could matter fall into a Black Hole and re-emerge in a Void as anti-matter. The voids are said to be expanding .. their content has to come from somewhere .. matter falling into a Black Hole has to go somewhere even if it's turned into energy .. perhaps there is no singularity in a Black Hole, but there is an escape into a Void.

It has been speculated that Black Holes might be connected to White Holes elsewhere by passable wormholes but I don't know why one would expect matter to transform into anti-matter in the process. (This would be especially problematic if those White Holes are in the same visible universe due to conservation of charge, baryon number, etc..) Voids have been expanding since the Big Bang but there are no conservation of space laws.
Art Neuendorffer

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: South Texas

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby BDanielMayfield » Fri May 19, 2017 3:14 am

Things that are probably nothing more than wishful sci-fi fodder:

    1. Faster than light travel
    2. Wormholes
    3. Whiteholes
    4. Anti-gravity

Please feel free to add to this list.
"Happy are the peaceable ... "

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13781
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby neufer » Fri May 19, 2017 4:02 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:
Things that are probably nothing more than wishful sci-fi fodder:

    1. Faster than light travel
    2. Wormholes
    3. Whiteholes
    4. Anti-gravity
Please feel free to add to this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_f ... cteristics wrote:
Science fiction elements include:

    A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.

    A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g. spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.

    Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots and other types of characters arising from a future human evolution.

    Futuristic or plausible technology such as ray guns, teleportation machines, and humanoid computers.

    Scientific principles that are new or that contradict accepted physical laws, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel or communication.

    New and different political or social systems, e.g. utopian, dystopian, post-scarcity, or post-apocalyptic.

    Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis (e.g. "The Force" in Star Wars.)

    Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.
Art Neuendorffer

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes don't bite

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Tue May 23, 2017 3:19 pm

neufer wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
neufer wrote:
Particle physics has been going in the direction of thinking of particles as (mem)branes free of singularities.

Perhaps, black holes should also be thought of as (2D event horizon) membranes free of singularities.

My question was, basically, could matter fall into a Black Hole and re-emerge in a Void as anti-matter. The voids are said to be expanding .. their content has to come from somewhere .. matter falling into a Black Hole has to go somewhere even if it's turned into energy .. perhaps there is no singularity in a Black Hole, but there is an escape into a Void.

It has been speculated that Black Holes might be connected to White Holes elsewhere by passable wormholes but I don't know why one would expect matter to transform into anti-matter in the process. (This would be especially problematic if those White Holes are in the same visible universe due to conservation of charge, baryon number, etc..) Voids have been expanding since the Big Bang but there are no conservation of space laws.


Voids may expand as space expands .. but also seem to be expanding from growth within them .. this energy propelling our local galaxy cluster, as most of us have read. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/the-great-repeller-previously-unknown-region-void-of-galaxies-is-pushing-the-milky-way.html Although, some sources say the void is 'dragging' the galaxy group, while others say it is 'pushing' the group. Confused confusion again.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Tue May 23, 2017 3:22 pm

neufer wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:
Things that are probably nothing more than wishful sci-fi fodder:

    1. Faster than light travel
    2. Wormholes
    3. Whiteholes
    4. Anti-gravity
Please feel free to add to this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_f ... cteristics wrote:
Science fiction elements include:

    A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.

    A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g. spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.

    Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots and other types of characters arising from a future human evolution.

    Futuristic or plausible technology such as ray guns, teleportation machines, and humanoid computers.

    Scientific principles that are new or that contradict accepted physical laws, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel or communication.

    New and different political or social systems, e.g. utopian, dystopian, post-scarcity, or post-apocalyptic.

    Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis (e.g. "The Force" in Star Wars.)

    Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.


That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby Chris Peterson » Tue May 23, 2017 3:26 pm

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 13781
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby neufer » Tue May 23, 2017 3:56 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Even scientists can only make educated guesses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Future

As it is, we aboard the Starship Asterisk* have our hands full just trying to follow & process those educated guesses.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby Chris Peterson » Tue May 23, 2017 4:08 pm

neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Even scientists can only make educated guesses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Future

Certainly, that's true for some of the more extreme ideas out there. But they're still educated. And the sort of ideas I'm talking about- faster than light travel, wormholes, and much else is settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 15612
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby bystander » Tue May 23, 2017 4:32 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:Certainly, that's true for some of the more extreme ideas out there. But they're still educated. And the sort of ideas I'm talking about- faster than light travel, wormholes, and much else is settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".

I'm not sure it is as settled as you seem to think. (Note: Links are mine.)

edit: While these subjects might be unlikely, they, at least, seem theoretically possible.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby Chris Peterson » Tue May 23, 2017 4:41 pm

bystander wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Certainly, that's true for some of the more extreme ideas out there. But they're still educated. And the sort of ideas I'm talking about- faster than light travel, wormholes, and much else is settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".

I'm not sure it is as settled as you seem to think. (Note: Links are mine.)

edit: While these subjects might be unlikely, they, at least, seem theoretically possible.

Settled with a much higher degree of confidence than "educated guess".
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Wed May 24, 2017 3:01 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.


Scientific history in the past 100 years if CHOCK full of brilliant scientists being proven wrong. Technology has advanced enough to make our mindsets insignificant, unless our mind is set on true science which is without limits.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Wed May 24, 2017 3:02 pm

neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Even scientists can only make educated guesses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Future

As it is, we aboard the Starship Asterisk* have our hands full just trying to follow & process those educated guesses.


Thank you, Neufer.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby Chris Peterson » Wed May 24, 2017 3:28 pm

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:That's what they said about a spherical (or nearly so) planet earth .. heavier than air flight .. man on the moon, etc. Why limit our thinking by saying 'these things will probably never happen?' Boundaries of the mind create boundaries of technology and achievement.

Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.

Scientific history in the past 100 years if CHOCK full of brilliant scientists being proven wrong.

Of course. I haven't suggested otherwise. That's how science works.

You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

warmingwarmingwarming
Ensign
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:19 am

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby warmingwarmingwarming » Wed May 24, 2017 3:34 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:Mostly, "they" didn't actually say these things, or if they did, "they" were not scientists in any modern sense of the word.

Today we have a much broader understanding of the laws of nature, and consequently are able to rationally justify what may or may not be impossible, what may or may not be reasonable ideas about the Universe.

Not all ideas have equal value.

Scientific history in the past 100 years if CHOCK full of brilliant scientists being proven wrong.

Of course. I haven't suggested otherwise. That's how science works.

You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.


Chris, how long ago was it that science learned that Voids are not empty spaces (a few months?) .. not individual scientists but collective science had agreed for how many decades that Voids were totally vacant .. instead they are dynamic areas bursting with enough energy to push our local group of galaxies along at hundreds of millions of miles an hour, or per second, or whatever it is. This is solid scientific knowledge being proven dramatically wrong, as with many other cases once barriers to knowledge are reduced. Our fundamental knowledge of nature has merely peeled one layer from an onion, and a very thin skin at that.
I think I think, though I'm not sure if I all the thoughts I think I think, or if they come to me from .. goodness knows where. :)

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 12820
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

Postby Chris Peterson » Wed May 24, 2017 3:41 pm

warmingwarmingwarming wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:You've missed the point, which is about scientific knowledge, not individual scientists. What has been extremely rare in the last 100 years has been the complete replacement of major, fundamental scientific ideas with entirely new ones. That's because so much of our fundamental understanding of nature is so solidly supported by evidence that nobody has been able to replace it. And probably won't, in most cases, because it's probably correct.

Chris, how long ago was it that science learned that Voids are not empty spaces (a few months?) .. not individual scientists but collective science had agreed for how many decades that Voids were totally vacant .. instead they are dynamic areas bursting with enough energy to push our local group of galaxies along at hundreds of millions of miles an hour, or per second, or whatever it is. This is solid scientific knowledge being proven dramatically wrong, as with many other cases once barriers to knowledge are reduced. Our fundamental knowledge of nature has merely peeled one layer from an onion, and a very thin skin at that.

Voids? That's really trivial stuff. And our changing understanding of the structure of the Universe is incremental. We're not seeing established, consensus views being replaced, only fleshed out.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Return to “The Asterisk Café: Discuss Anything Astronomy Related”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests