Wow Cic, you're finding some very far-out-there stuff.
And, littek, it's way over my head.....
c.i.
satt,
I'm not sure what your reference to the singularity means since according to relativity there is the "conjecture of cosmic censorship" which flows from the fact that there is no such thing as a "naked" singularity. Whenever the imploding star forms a singularity, it must also create a surrounding horizon, which is where the "cosmic censorship" begins. So given a horizon we have a singularity. From my understanding both are created simultaneously. Am I, perhaps, mixing my frames of reference?
JM
Found this on "black holes" on the same link above.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/deepspace/blackholes/index.shtml
BTW, The link provided above has many topics about physics for those interested. c.i.
JamesMorrison wrote:Whenever the imploding star forms a singularity, it must also create a surrounding horizon, <..>
Thanks for the reply.
In the process of the implosion of a star, when the concentration of the mass is so high that as the process almost reaches the point of the formation of a singularity, the gravitational effect on time (looked at from far away) works strongly and the lapse of time extremely slowed, which in turn implies that the singularity is not formed yet. Is anything wrong?
satt,
In regards to your post of Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:29 pm : I originally thought of this as concerning an existent "black hole" and an object falling into it as viewed from very far away (horizon and singularity formed, that is, a "black hole" recently formed and not subjected to any "evaporation" as of yet). What your logic implies is that due to gravitational time dilation the "far away observer" not only never witnesses the object fall into the hole but he would not be able to view the complete formation of the "black hole" and therefore perceive the object to hover above a star whose light was extremly red shifted. Given the light from both the object and the imploding star can be both thought as coming from the same source (because of the immense distance between the observer/star compared to the relative lack of distance between the star and the object), this logically follows and I agree.
JM
JM and sat, Isn't black holes in another time dimension anyway? c.i.
c.i. ..
Distant black holes seem beyond the border of human time scale.
I didn't think that black holes were in a different dimension. That's why I thought those articles you linked to were interesting. There has been some talk about nuggets of super-massive matter located outside of our known dimensions that may contribute to the huge amount of mass we've yet to discover.
Now this is just a thought, but;
My understanding of a black hole (at least the most common variety) is that it is caused by a massive star imploding upon itself with such force (caused by its huge mass) that it collapses beyond the point of total compression (i.e. the atoms are crushed into one another to an actual solid - no space), so that the collapsing mass passes into another state of being (dimension, whatever). At this point it becomes a "singularity" and an event horizon forms defining the "edge" of the transition from "here" to "there".
Speculation: is there an anti-universe; partner to our universe but of anti-matter, and is the matter bluting out into this anti-universe, causing who knows what sort of gargantuan upheaval, or, is there an equivalent "white" hole in our partner anti-universe, busily anihilating the effects of our mutual rift?????
I couldn't begin to offer an opinion on your interpretation of a black hole. Sorry, but I do find it interesting. c.i.
Nothing to be sorry about cic, that's what we're here for!
BoGoWo RE your post of Feb 12, 2003 9:11 pm in which you state:
" My understanding of a black hole (at least the most common variety) is that it is caused by a massive star imploding upon itself with such force (caused by its huge mass) that it collapses beyond the point of total compression (i.e. the atoms are crushed into one another to an actual solid - no space), so that the collapsing mass passes into another state of being (dimension, whatever). At this point it becomes a "singularity" and an event horizon forms defining the "edge" of the transition from "here" to "there".
This is essentially true except the last sentence, which implies some sort of passage to another "dimension".
"Black holes can either be formed from a single star which has at least about 2.4 times the mass of our Sun (2.4 Solar Masses is the term usually employed) or from as many as a billion suns or more (This is the explanation used for the existence of Quasars).
Taking the case of one star with the appropriate mass: Normally the process of fusion, which produces the star's energy, heats its gas fuel to such a degree that it expands but the star's gravity due to its mass keeps it from blowing apart. The stars we normally see are in this state of equilibrium. However, at some point the star begins to run out of fuel (hydrogen) and begins to cool. As it cools the gases and other heaver elements no longer have the energy to resist the star's massive gravity and the star implodes upon itself. Some of the star's mass/energy is lost to space in the form of radiation, which is viewed from afar as a Super Nova. The rest of the mass is blown inward (imploded) towards itself. This implosion further compresses the star's mass into an extremely small mass of about 6 miles across. The mass's gravity (space/time warpage in General Relativity terms) is so strong that nothing that falls into it, not even light, can escape. The point of "No Return" of an object approaching the Black Hole is called the "Event Horizon". After passing through this Horizon the mass/energy is "lost" to our universe. (This has been referred to as "self censorship" as the Black Hole cuts itself off from the rest of the universe) Any information (read mass or light) is no longer available to the outside universe.
What happens exactly inside the horizon, of course, cannot be directly observed and is open to interpretation of the results of calculations using Einstein's Relativity Theories. Physicists are sure the individual atoms and their particles are extremely compressed but they don't believe a "singularity" in the classic sense is formed. That is they do not believe all the mass disappears into a geometric "point". The compression is such that the electrons of atoms are squeezed extremely close to the other nuclear particles.
Theorists do believe that black holes can "evaporate" away their mass via radiation and eventually disappear. How an object so dense that light cannot escape can lose its mass due to radiation is another subject entirely.
As far as black holes being a gateway to other dimensions who knows? Probably not. Even if they were we couldn't use them. We, and any space ship we would be traveling in, would be ripped asunder by tidal gravity forces while crossing a black hole's horizon. "We" as such would never make it to the "singularity".
Wormholes may be "portals" allowing us a way to travel vast distances in space by taking shortcuts thru hyperspace (Time travel may be possible via wormholes but given we could find/create them there are restrictions on the resultant forward/backward distance one could travel). However, I have not heard of anyone proposing their use in travel to other dimensions.
The topic of other dimensions I am not that familiar with other than simple "Flatland" proposals. These can be explored mainly through mathematical models in the abstract (this conecpt is used by the phone company to allow many conversations on one line in our real world.). Mathematically these are termed matrices. However, my mind has enough difficulty thinking in 4 dimensions so thoughts entering into hyperspace are extremely difficult for me to envision. That, of course, does not preclude their existence.
JM
JM, Thank you again for providing us with what black holes and how they occur in language that even I can understand. c.i.
James;
your "After passing through this Horizon the mass/energy is "lost" to our universe. (This has been referred to as "self censorship" as the Black Hole cuts itself off from the rest of the universe) Any information (read mass or light) is no longer available to the outside universe." is exactly what I was postulating; however, I agree my use of the term "dimension" is missleading.
I was thinking in terms of "other", as opposed to "4th., etc.".
But I'll hold to my "anti-universe" horses, or equivalent.
[for now]
In the usual math, it seems the case that beyond a singularity one can extend a regular area. It may be very natural to think that beyond the black hole singularity one can extend a regular space(-time).
BoGoWo,
It is interesting to note here that some have proposed that "Our" universe is one of an infinite amount that have existed in the past and will exist in the future, that is a linear progression of Big Bangs, Big Crunches, and then another Big Bang etc.
This concept is sometime used to explain Non-Intelligent design of our universe. The thought is that given enough time (infinity will do nicely) enough universes and their unique laws (which differ from one universe to another) can be created so that eventually one universe (ours) will have exactly the right combination of laws to allow increasing complexity, which would then allow the progression of atoms to stars to heavier elements to molecules to self replicating molecules (DNA) to... us. ("us" in general meaning living things). Why not, we have no idea what came before this universe and are privy to the same amount of knowledge about the next.
Others propose concurrent universes existing simultaneously separated some how by hyperspace. If one can envision an infinite amount of sequential universes each with different laws determining its own type of physics (time flows both forward and backward for instance) why not "parallel universes with such weird laws? Of course if we were able to drop into such a universe we would not know if we were coming or going. Heh, heh.
JM
JM, I'm already in that state of "coming and going," so in my world, it won't make any difference. Heh, heh.
c.i.
JM;
perhaps, in fact, we would "be" neither coming, nor going!
