ok so here's my theory on black holes, once a black hole has tunneled through as many dementions as possible, will it warp once it reaches the dimentional limit, and re-emerge in the dimension in witch it was created? Or would this warping go in a continuous circle never re-emerging and just repeating it self? I'm not really that sure' but that's my take on black holes. Thanks for reading!

Hi tripworld!

Sounds like an interesting theory, now you just have to do the 2 years of math to prove it!  HA HA!

There are lots of theories, books, and tv shows on black holes.  I don't think there is one final theory.  Astronomers are studying black holes by looking at the material that is falling in to them, their x-ray emissions, and lots and lots of other stuff.  What fun, huh?

Happy observing!

Tina

black holes evaporate down to the "Planck length", after that, the quantum gravity academics need to develop a viable theory on whether it totally evaporates or continues indefinitely as an apparent 'singularity'.  

Due to the theory of conservation of matter and energy, what goes into a black must of necessity re-emerge into another Domain, another universe. IMHO it cannot be otherwise. Even allowing for Planck calculations, this amount of matter, especially with black holes of millions of solar mass, simply have to "go" somewhere. That somewhere is another universe in the form of a "white hole." This staggering compression of matter and energy is simply not possible, period.  

Ahhh... the theory of conservation of mass.  Thank you Methussilah, (pardon my spelling).  I was in a very heated discussion on this subject a couple of months ago.  Matter is niether created or destroyed it just changes forms.  You can't get something from nothing.  The matter that is pulled in by a black hole has to go some where.  Is it compressed to a infintesible amount, or spit out in another deminsion?  I wish I knew, but it has to go somewhere....

Rock on

Blake

blake : The matter is simply converted into intensifying the higgs field of the universe. 

 

Blake, I am not a physicist, but I am an avid ATMer and astronomer of sorts. However, I do know more than your ordinary bear about physics and science in general. 

Blake, just think hard on this for a bit. Whenever we non-scientific types raise these questions, these physicists get very, very impatient. For example, one can easily intuit that when a massive star goes supernova, explodes and compresses in on itself to form a neutron star, the mass of this star remnant, perhaps a few miles across, will be enormous indeed -  a shoebox of  this"stuff" weighing in at a few billion tons. We know this because we can physically observe these very massive neutron stars and their immediate gravitational effects on surrounding stellar objects. Further, given the staggering density and compaction of these neutron stars, their internal structure must of necessity approach Planck length with respect to their interal atomic structure. Instinctively, one is driven to the conclusion that matter and energy can only be compressed so much, and then something has to give.

When these physicists view these black holes through their telescopes, and tell us some approach a billion solar masses (our sun is a solar mass), and then go on to tell us all this mass, all this stuff, is somehow suspended at the center of this black hole in a "singularity, they are blowing smoke bigtime. Moreover, the mere fact that their gravity is so enormous that even infalling light cannot escape has absolutely no correlation with what happens to all this mass and energy once it enters that black hole. It does not follow that because matter and energy cannot escape the  gravitational pull in the near vicinity of a black hole that it must somehow reside  infinitely "compacted" in the center of that black hole. This infinitely enormous mass in these imaginary black holes of billions of solar masses would be so staggeringly dense so as to defy all known rules of physics and conservation of mass and energy. It simply has to do something, to go somewhere. Even Plack measurements, 10 to the -43 scale, are dwarfed by these impossible densities of matter and energy.

 

Thank you so much for your interest and kind response. Now watch some smart-assed pyhsicist explain to me how impossibly ignorant I am without explaining the math. Like, everything is so "simple," yet they can never make it clear to anyone except geniuses like themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a whole lot of misconceptions going on here:

First misconception that should be cleared up:

It is not considered the "Theory of conservation of mass". It is the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.  And mass is nothing more than frozen energy. I become concerned when I read something in which someone uses that term "theory". It takes on a bad connotation like its a bad word. When someone uses the term theory I think they feel that it just means a guess. Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity are a bit more than just guesses....They have been painstakingly worked out and the predictions that they make  have been extremely accurate to the point that they have yet to be proven wrong. These THEORIES are more than mere guesses, they are extremely  accurate predictors of what happens from atoms to stars and galaxies

Second misconception:

Blackholes WILL lose mass over time it they are not fed. Blackholes will eventually evaporate given time. There is nothing that says how long a blackhole needs to take to lose its mass...it can take in billions of  stellar mass objects over billions of years but once it stops being given mass it will evtually evaporate through Hawking radiation....it will take trillions of years but it will eventually evaporate....so the First Law of Thermodynamics is still met...it just takes TIME. I believe a certain amount of energy is also lost to gravity waves but i may be incorrect on that part.

Also, we don't actually see material go into the blackhole. By its own definiton its totally black, not even light escapes the gravity well of a blackhole, so we don't see the hole itself....we merely infer its existence by all its effects to the surrounding medium. We can see matter as it falls towards the blackhole but we are forever barred from seeing it enter by the blackholes event horizon(the point at which light is so redshifted that it cannot climb out of the gravity well). So, in the end...the mass doesn't NEED to go anywhere...given time it will be released as Hawking radiation. By feeding the blackhole, all we do is make it bigger....it is not compacting the mass more

Third misconception:

A neutron star's  neutrons do not even come close to the Planck length. While they are highly compacted objects it is still made of regular atoms, merely super compacted. In String Theory, unless I am mistaken, the length of a string is also the Planck Length. which is considerably smaller than even the quarks and gluons  which make up the neutons in neutron stars.

 

MIkeS.

Mike, thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. However, predictably enough as a scientific type, you danced around my questions. Effectively, is what you're saying is there is NO limit to how much matter and energy can be devorured and squeezed into nothingness? What about, say, a black hole of a trillion solar masses that has been "fed" especially well? Do I understand you correctly that this enormous amount of mass, by dint of the enormous gravitational field at its center, will result in some sort of singularity with no almost infinite mas but not occupy any physical space as we experience space? 

What we're trying to do, Mike, in our childlike ignorance, is to get some sort of handle on what precisely is going on at the center of these black holes. As you know, mathemeticians do not like infinities, so it's safe to conclude there's a physical limit on how much mass can be "squeezed," right? Well, if the density of a neutron star isn't even close, what is?

 Let's say a black hole from another Domain gobbled up our universe, would the densities then approach Planck length? Like, In what physical space could you compress our universe? The size of a golf ball? A marble? Maybe a water molecule? If this is a "stupid question," I wonder if you could tell me why it''s stupid. And if the math is so esoteric, then I suppose me and 5.5 billion other people on the planet will have to continue to live our lives in complete ignorance.

The fact that you don't like an answer dosen't mean its not an answer.  And the fact that you took it as a personal attack is .. quite frankly ...amazing.  I was merely stating the facts as currently understood by science at this time. As stated, all that will happen when you add more mass to a blackhole is to increase its size..ie: its event horizon expands. We are barred from knowing what is happening inside the blackhole by its event horizon.

I am a huge fan of science fiction and love the concept of wormholes and other dimensions and all that other great stuff. I would love it to be true, but that does not really change the reality of things.

So, let me ask a question instead:

If a blackhole with a mass of ...say.... 100 million solar masses made a gateway to another dimension or universe,  that would mean that the mass of the blackhole would be gone into another place, therefore there would no longer be any mass at all....so no more blackhole.....poof..its gone ...disappeared into another dimension...all 100 million solar masses.......but no ...wait...we know its still there by its  effects on the rest of the galaxy around it and by its effects on the nearby matter being disrupted by its gravity. How does that get explained if a blackhole is a gateway to another place? Or are you willing to say that the 100 million solar masses stays but everything that falls in after goes there? It would seem to me that that is stretching the limits of credulity a bit much.

The problem with blackholes is that they truly are a conundrum in science.......crazy things happen near them and unexpected results can come out of the math used to try to explain them. Because even Relativtity breaks down at the event horizon it is impossible to say what is happening beyond it using todays science........hopefully someday we can answer these question. And, after all, you may be right. I personally find it to be an interesting question.

My point that I apparently failed to make is that anything can be postulated or questioned but in asking the question,you cannot ignore the real science just because it gives you answers that you don't prefer , and if you quote certain theories or laws or whatever then you should be accurate in your statements.

MIke S.

 

Ii still stand by the fact that matter is niether created or destroyed.  It may leave our universe but it  is stil there, somewwhere, we just can't detect  it.   Much like the dark matter that we are just now detectiing.  Thank you for the original post, It   just  makes me think aand ponder, and I  LOVE IT!!!!!.Lets keep thhis topicc going, I am very interested  in all the opinions.

ROCK ON

BLKE

Methuselah:

However, predictably enough as a scientific type, you danced around my questions.

This statement confuses me; if you can not be satisfied with a scientific answer (and Mike's answer was accurate, scientific, and well stated) then why ask the question in a forum devoted to science?

We don't know what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole.  By definition we can not know because no information come out, and without the information we are left with math, assumption and suppostition.  Our current math breaks down at the extreems within the event horizon, and we call that point of breakdown a singularity.  Then we all start guessing, or we back off and start throwing darts at the guesses of the folks who are actually doing the work.

Thank you for that zachsdad, That was exactly what I was wondering also, I just wasn't able to express my feelings about it correctly.

 

Mike S.

This is one of the most imterestimg topics I have been invovled in. In one of the post, not sure whos it was, they implied that compacting all this matter in the center of the black hole, would compact it to the size of a golf ball or  a marble, to the point that it was non excistanant.    Before the big  bang all matter in the universe was compacted into an infintasbe size.  There fore  is it not possible that all the matter could be pulled in and held there, or ejected to another universe.  So according to the big bang all matter was there,in the beging.   It did not

appeaar

I watched a show on theories of black holes, and how they make take form in all kinds of ways. For instance, one scientist is trying to make a link between a black hole here on Earth, and the Bermuda Triangle. Most others scientists disagreed with his theory, but the one who believed in it held steadfast to his views. He was making a correlation between the Bermuda triangle, and the Dragon triangle which is off the coast of Japan. He thinks there is a warphole thru the Earth connecting the two, because both triangles have very funny magnetic occurences and such. The two triangles are directly opposite each other, and contain the deepest ocean trenches anywhere on the planet. Not sure I buy into all of that, but some evidence made the theory pretty interesting to listen to. Black holes are crazy! I fear them! White holes are equally as crazy, spitting back out matter. This universe is very complex.

Im not sure the matter that enters a black whole 'goes' somewhere. When a black hole is feeding, it is my understanding that it grows and increases in mass and density. Perhaps the more matter that gets sucked in, the more the super gravity affects the whole lot of it on the sub atomic level. Since we know the majority of atoms is empty space, whats to keep the electron orbit of each atom from shrinking? Could the black hole not create a kind of equilibrium of sorts this way? If we think of quantum theory in this instance, we can assume (hope?) that the probability of collision doesnt change much. That would effectively increase the density and mass of a feeding black hole. To say 'its impossible for that much density to exist' is a bit arrogant to say. Maybe its super density caused by super gravity? Physics is some crazy stuff, and I admit I know nothing about it ... maybe I should do a bit of reading next time before posting my 'food for thought'.

I too am fascinated by this subject. However reading through these posts re-inforces my belief that here science breaks down, speculation is rife, and one might as well be arguing the existence of God as of Black Holes and their nature. It ends up as arid stultifying opinion and perhaps should be banned rather than encouraged by Mr. McGovern !

I M thourougly enjoying this topic.  There as some very interesting and intelligent thoughts bring expressed.  Could it not be possible that the matter that enters the black hole be converted to pure energy, which supports the first law of thermodynamics, matter is niether created or destroyed, that is the mass is converted to energy.  It connot be broken down to nothingness.  Once again I point to the theory of the big bang, everthing that was here before the big bang is still here filing the universe

Rock on

Blake

I believe the matter sucked into a black hole turns into energy, via the E=mc^2 equation.

Black holes, per Stephen Hawking, will eventually evaporate due to the quantum vacuum fluctuations just outside the event horizon.

The energy inside will be spewed back out as energy and mass, according to how much went in, per the E=mc^2 equation.

But the mystery is, the current theories have them evaporating down to the size of a planck length, about 10 exp -35 meters, which would be a sphere of volume (10 exp -35)^3.

Quantum gravity (and superstrings) cannot describe what happens next, or what is inside this tiny black hole... 

Quantum gravity, and Stephen Hawking, Jakob Bekenstein also developed theories wrt. the entropy and information going into/coming out of black holes.

Great topic. Well, I do want to rebutt a little on the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed. On the contrary, it actually can be destroyed. I was watching a great episode of "the universe" last night. And Michio Kaku made a great comment about decay. Everything as we know it, on a molecular level breaks down. Maybe what falls into a black hole eventually decays and dissipates. Think about it, eventually the black hole itself will run out of "fuel" to devour, and it evaporates. Lets look at nature itself when we ask this question. Stars run out of fuel and become giants until they cannot endure the pressure of their gravity, and they fall into themselves. They run out of fuel to burn and become a small fraction of their original size and cool off until there is no nuclear fusion at all. They, in essence, decay. Eventually, they break down and evaporate. Now, This make take trillions and trillions of years to happen, but it does happen, barring any other circumstance such as gravitational pulverization or a gravitational expulsion from a binary star, or relative planet, etc. Right now, the universe is in such a young stage that we cannot know for sure what the outcome of black holes will tell us. At this rate, the number of black holes is increasing, and I don't believe our technology will be able to answer any questions about them until they reach the point of their maturity in the cosmic timeline. But eventually, it is claimed that the universe, and the galaxies within it will stop producing stars altogether. Right now, galaxies are producing young stars, but they are getting fewer because the elements that create those stars are being dispersed across the universe and we are spreading out the universe quicker and quicker that there is actually less matter to create more stars. In hundreds of billions of years, there will be smaller, longer burning stars, but they too will die out. Eventually, the energy that creates all things, will decay and thus, energy itself will evaporate. It will find less things to change its molecular structure into. Now, this is just ONE idea. Quantum physics answers that because there will be an inevitable anomoly. Something will spark from this "doomsday" idea that the universe will come to an end. It may be an alternate universe, it may be a reversal in all elemental properties, but it will spark something for teh universe to continue producing energy. So, with all that rambling, the answer still remains:

I have no idea, Im going out for some ice cream.