• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

black hole in space

B

blackstealth007

Senior member
I was interested if anyone has pics or info of the black holes in space. I think that it is pretty cool that when things go into it, they never come back out. Thanks already
 
Originally posted by: blackstealth007
I was interested if anyone has pics or info of the black holes in space. I think that it is pretty cool that when things go into it, they never come back out. Thanks already
Click to expand...

There are no pictures of black holes. Light is one of those things that don't come back out.
 
for the first time recently, we witnessed the birth of a black hole. 2 neutron stars collided and exploded, then collapsed on themselves. Bassyhead is right. You can't have real pictures, but you can see the dark spot against the rest of the stars, and blackholes give off radiation.
 
Black holes have a temperature of a few millionths of a degree (via Hawking radiation) making them impossible to detect directly. If nearby stars and gas are falling into them, the gasses and particles often get super accelerated before they pass the event horizon and give of detectable light and radiation (like the massive radiation output of quasars and the bright center of a lot of galaxies) but the black hole isn't directly observable. They also aren't that big to show up as a black spot against the backdrop of stars. A typical black hole's event horizon is probably the size of a large star up to maybe a small solar system. Their influence is great but the actually black region from which light can't escape isn't huge because of gravity's diminishing effect over distance if I understand it correctly.

Sometimes gamma bursts are associated with them. Here is the first ever recorded instance of it: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050509_blackhole_birth.html From the brief burst of ratiation they believe that two neutron stars collided and collapses into a black hole.
 
What fasinates me is to try to imagine a 3 dimensional black hole, where things are being pulled in all around the sphere. I guess it would look the same from any angle.
Another interesting thing is to think about a rotating black hole. All stars rotate, so should a black hole. How does that affect the gas being pulled in around it? Does the mass rotation dictate the ring of material that is falling in?
 
Originally posted by: johnpombrio
What fasinates me is to try to imagine a 3 dimensional black hole, where things are being pulled in all around the sphere. I guess it would look the same from any angle.
Another interesting thing is to think about a rotating black hole. All stars rotate, so should a black hole. How does that affect the gas being pulled in around it? Does the mass rotation dictate the ring of material that is falling in?
Click to expand...

Text

According to classical general relativity, black holes can be entirely characterized according to three parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. This principle is summarized by the saying, coined by John Wheeler, "black holes have no hair."
Click to expand...

on the other hand

Text

"The problem with the classical theory is that you could use any combination of particles to make the black hole -- protons, electrons, stars, planets, whatever -- and it would make no difference. There must be billions of ways to make a black hole, yet with the classical model the final state of the system is always the same," Mathur said.

That kind of uniformity violates the quantum mechanical law of reversibility, he explained. Physicists must be able to trace the end product of any process, including the process that makes a black hole, back to the conditions that created it.
Click to expand...


 
"quantum mechanical law of reversibility"?

That part I don't understand, AFAIk there is no reason why a dissipative system needs to be reversible; there are plenty of examples of TRSB in nature.
 
One thing I've always wondered... since energy and light cannot escape, what if a telescope was aimed directly at a black hole (assuming that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy, dunno if that's been disproven or not, I haven't paid attention to astronomy for several years), would it be able to transmit images back to Earth or not? I guess this depends on another thing, does stuff get destroyed when it goes through a black hole?
 
Originally posted by: GML3G0
to see it through a telescope would require light to reflect off of it. not possible.
Click to expand...

What if there was a way to safely backlight it? Like if we sent a huge piece of tin foil and managed to get it far enough behind the black hole that it wouldn't get sucked in by the gravity and yet close enough you could still see the black. I'm guessing the tin foil would have to be roughly 150,000 miles by 150,000 miles. 😛
 
Originally posted by: aplefka
One thing I've always wondered... since energy and light cannot escape, what if a telescope was aimed directly at a black hole (assuming that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy, dunno if that's been disproven or not, I haven't paid attention to astronomy for several years), would it be able to transmit images back to Earth or not? I guess this depends on another thing, does stuff get destroyed when it goes through a black hole?
Click to expand...

Energy can escape a black hole, just not photons. Gravitons can escape though.
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: aplefka
One thing I've always wondered... since energy and light cannot escape, what if a telescope was aimed directly at a black hole (assuming that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy, dunno if that's been disproven or not, I haven't paid attention to astronomy for several years), would it be able to transmit images back to Earth or not? I guess this depends on another thing, does stuff get destroyed when it goes through a black hole?
Click to expand...

Energy can escape a black hole, just not photons. Gravitons can escape though.
Click to expand...

I think gravitons need to be proven first...
 
Originally posted by: aplefka
Originally posted by: GML3G0
to see it through a telescope would require light to reflect off of it. not possible.
Click to expand...

What if there was a way to safely backlight it? Like if we sent a huge piece of tin foil and managed to get it far enough behind the black hole that it wouldn't get sucked in by the gravity and yet close enough you could still see the black. I'm guessing the tin foil would have to be roughly 150,000 miles by 150,000 miles. 😛
Click to expand...


Problem is, you're assuming the light from behind it is moving in a straight line. The black hole is going to bend the light. It seems to me that I saw computer created pictures describing what we'd see if we were looking at a black hole. IIRC, one of the possible outcomes of looking at a black hole is that we'd see what was behind the blackhole, except the image would be inverted. The black hole acts as a lens, affecting the path the light takes.
 
Certainly; gravitons don't do the job. How could a particle reflecting off an object/being absorbed by the object draw in nearer the source?
I've heard an alternate theory based on ZPE I believe where practically an infinite frequency/wavelength variation of waves is travelling through space. Waves whose wavelength is greater than the distance between two objects do not fit in between the two objects. What we then have is a pressure effect....the outward pressure from only the waves that fit in between the two objects is less than the inward pressure of all the other waves out on the other side. The experiment that sparked this theory was with two super thin sheets of a material were made and placed right next to eachother in a darn near perfect vacuum. They then moved together with no forces.

But you know now I'm thinking, thats exactly what gravity is, that didn't exactly prove anything in particlur. There might have been some other factor I'm not remembering, but I can't think of anything that would change this. But this at least makes more sense than gravitons.


One other thing......are we absolutely sure that gravity bends light? With Einstein's experiment on the sun, he didn't take into accoun that there is a giant atmosphere around the sun of gasses, just like on our planet. And light travelling through gasses has a magnification/distortion effect, as we all know. The same could be said for black holes; there is so much matter going into or adjacent to them that it completely blocks the visible light (but not higher frequency waves because they have more power). Am I forgetting something?
 
Well, physics explains our perceptions of the universe. Einstein's and other's predictions in relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. have been confirmed to a very high degree of precision. However, you can probably say that gravity doesn't bend light... light travels in a straight line. It's time-space itself that's bent by gravity. Or, we can explain the same observation by stating that gravity does indeed affect the path of light. Regardless, Einstein's observation that was confirmed with the star next to the sun during an eclipse (or whatever it was that you're referring to) was indeed caused by gravity, not refraction by passing through another medium.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
One other thing......are we absolutely sure that gravity bends light? With Einstein's experiment on the sun, he didn't take into accoun that there is a giant atmosphere around the sun of gasses, just like on our planet. And light travelling through gasses has a magnification/distortion effect, as we all know. The same could be said for black holes; there is so much matter going into or adjacent to them that it completely blocks the visible light (but not higher frequency waves because they have more power). Am I forgetting something?
Click to expand...

Isn't it that it bends time, and thus (among other things) light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top