So much for that theory...

I see a line at the science fiction forums forming.

"It takes intelligence to form a theory, but great wisdom to admit your theory may be wrong"

 

Interesting, I read one of his books, although I have little memory of it

 

Hmmm - that is interesting.
Too bad for me I'm a lazy person and thus will not go find more info on this.
Probably exceeds MY intelligence anyway - high physics makes me dizzy.

 

Well, this is quite fascinating. I'd love to read more on his theory of how he thinks this black hole "information" can be extracted from the emissions.

Also, I was thinking.....if a star implodes causing a vaccuum of itself and everything around it, there still is a displacement of matter outward -- from the space that the star itself occupied. Kind of like throwing a rock in water -- everything around it implodes in, but there is a splash. So, why wouldn't that splash (i.e. emissions) contain the history of the implosion? Simplistic analogy I know.....but it does seem logical. The question of how to capture and interpret those emisions is fascinating.

 

I'm not sure I understand that analogy Spellbound. I didn't think it worked quite that way. Your interpretation of throwing a rock into the pond is certainly an accurate description of that event, but I had the understanding that the implosion of a star was entirely internalized. So there was no "splash" effect so to speak. Of course, I'm a chemist, so my knowledge of subatomic particles doesn't necessarily translate well into the world of quantum physics. You are likely approaching it from a completely different vantage point, which may be why I don't understand what you mean.

EDIT: Spelling

 

What I was trying to say (bear with me here ) is that the star, with it's own matter, took up space when it existed.....when it imploded, it displaced some of that matter by the implosion occupying that same space... (actually my splash analogy is incorrect -- that assumed that a rock, of it's own matter, was being thrown into another object (water) -- it was never part of the water's mass to begin with. The effect is the same, but the process is different.

 

Still not sure I understand here. I'm trying to visualize a sphere with an sphere on this to get your meaning. (I know that a black hole is a point singularity, but I'm trying to visualize two spheres for clarity's sake.) The outer sphere would represent the volume of the original star, the second sphere would represent the final volume of the black hole. Are you saying when some of the matter of the outer sphere was forced into the volume of the inner sphere, that there would be a splash effect of this matter? Like I said, Spelly, you sound like a physicist, and I'm a chemist, so I may be way out of my league on this one.

 

Trust me, I'm no physicist. I guess part of my thinking was based on the fact that no two objects, composed of matter, can occupy the same space at the same time -- hence the implosion of a star occupying it's own space is replaced by the black hole in that same space, containing pieces of it's dna, so to speak. It's just a thought.

 

I think Spellbound is missing the concept of density. A black hole is a point of infinite density. Whether there is one ton of star matter or a trillion trillion trillion tons of star matter at that one point is not applicable...it is infinite. There is no "splash" outwards of the matter which was at one point internal of the collapsing outer shell...that matter does in fact coexist at the same point in space with the rest of the matter..

Don't feel bad though...no human being truly understands black holes...

 

Very cool... thanks, LNT! The whole topic is most intruiging.

 

I don't understand how they come to the term "infinite density", the star had a finite mass, and it is compressed into the tiniest volume, which isn't 0...

You can never figure out the smallest number, because there is always something smaller than that, but it is still finite..

Because the finite mass is spread over a finite volume, the density can't be infinite right?

 

With finite mass you can't get infinite density. Even if you got infinite volume, you can't divide infinity by a finite number.

As I see it, the matter from implosion has to bear some marks of it, but it doesn't necessarily have to hold a recoverable record of the history of that implosion. There is such a possibility, but I don't see enough proof to consider it more than a possibility.

But I'm not a physicist and I can live without the knowledge

 

Either the mass is infinitely large or the point is infinitely small...you are correct to assume that the star had a fixed mass prior to collapse...that is why they call a black hole a "singularity"...it is infinitely small hence it is "singular"...

You must understand that conventional (i.e. "mechanical" ) thinking does not apply to a black hole...things such as time and space do not have meaning. We stand a much better chance understanding them through indirect observation or perhaps through mathamatics...but true understanding (experiments) may never be possible.

EDIT....

volume equals 1/infinity

wrong...you can and the answer is infinity

[ July 17, 2004, 01:24: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

volume equals 1/infinity which is infinite close to zero without ever reaching it. although in many situations it is considered zero.
damn i remember what a headache "infinity problems" gave me during gymnasium(college i guess), had to write a rapport proving that a ball would jump infinite times during a finite time.

 

Infinite isn't a figure. It doesn't exist in the way people usually think. It's like saying "time is infinite", but it isn't. It's just a way to describe something undefinite. In the case of a black hole many use an example where the atoms are collapsed in such away that the protons and electrons are in fact directly connected to each other. Normally if I remember correct, the diameter of the electron shell is roughly 10 000 times larger than the diameter of the actual core. In a black hole, the magnetic powers could not apply over the immense gravity. Which would cause all of the particles to collapse into one superdense core.

Singularity isn't supposed to be one point without any diameter. Just superdense material broken down to the fundamental buildingblocks (quarks, leptons etc we don't even know about yet) of all matter, pressed as tightly into each other as possible.

A superlarge black hole does in fact have a core with a measurable diameter. It's just impossible to predict how small of a diameter it would be. And so, it is infinite.

I'm no physicist, but I've had interest in these matters since from being a child, and this is how I remember / like to view things.

Anyway, I'm extremely thrilled by this thing. It will really be interesting to see what he has to say. Being one to always form my own theories of things, I can't wait to learn this new information.

 

Ouch, my head hurts after reading all this.....

 

Density isn't a real entity, it's a concept. That concept is defined to be mass divided by volume. One can't divide by infinity any more than by zero. Infinity can't really be divided by a finite number, either, at least in more or less normal maths. Assuming one actually can get infinite mass with finite volume or the other way round, it would be logical to assume that density doesn't apply or is not measurable.

Once the concept is redefined, I see no problem. However, the traditional way it won't work.

 

Hmm...I'm not too sure about this...but here goes...

I think according to relativity space is defined as the time it takes light to travel. There is no such thing as absolute space in the normal "3-D image in your head" kinda way. Inside a black hole light cannot travel and time is stopped. I believe this would make the internal diameter of a black infinitely small.

But just like everyone else here...I am certainly not a physicist.

EDIT

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing here...

The "event horizon" or the point at which light may no longer escape from a black hole can be measured...but I am not sure if there is a difference among black holes as to its size. If there is no difference...well then, hello density.

 

The star which collapsed into a black hole had finite mass and measurable density.
Black holes have increasing mass and there is no known manner of measuring its diameter. There is also no theory of drawing a co-relation between the diameter of the event horizon and that of the black hole itself, as far as I know. Hence infinite density.

The original massive star implodes on itself with a force and velocity which breaks down the intramolecular forces and condenses matter. To draw an analogy from soccer, if you imagine the ball at one goal-line to be the atom core then the electron, which is of the size of an olive, would be at the other end of the field.The forces which bring an electron to it core, and lead to the creation of a black hole are immense indeed.
The 'splash' that Spellbound talks of may be from this but it exists from only before the formation of the black hole. This is how information relating to the formation of the black hole could be divined. The theory has been that there is no way of knowing what actually is happening once the blackhole has been formed.

Wonder what Hawkings will say.