open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Astrophysics-Need serious thinkers here
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2006.07.25 14:40:00 - [31]
 

I thought that black holes were supergiant star cores that collapsed into themselves due to the extreme mass they had.

By collapsing into themselves they created an infitely deep gravity well where nothing can escape.


...something like a lead ball that you put into a rubber sheet and the lead ball starts going down and down and down and never stops, creating a depression in the rubber sheat.

...so yeah, I belive that the black hole is infact a space-time depression and not a space-time rupture.

DarkMatter
Sintered Sanity
Posted - 2006.07.25 14:42:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: DarkMatter on 25/07/2006 14:45:23
Originally by: Ann Mari
I'm a mechanical design engineer and I didn't do great at physics in varsity, but here goes...

From what I've read black holes arn't holes at all. They're actually super compressed matter. Like a planet that imploded on itself. And it started drawing more and more matter to it. And the more matter it collects the stronger it's gravitational pull becomes and the denser it becomes.

Eventually it's so dense, and it's gravity so strong that not even light can escape from it. So all the other light sources' light doesn't get reflected by it, it simply eats all the light.

How's that? Razz


Very good my fellow Mechanical Design Engineer...

Good enough description for me. Although I wish I had more talents as far as astrophysics is concerned, as it is of very high interest to me. I'm just not analytical enough to understand the math...

I once saw an interesting show, that described each large spiral galaxy had to have a super-massive black hole at the center, in order for the galaxy to form in the first place... And that the velocity of the stars on outer edge of the galaxy was proportional to the size & strength of the black hole...

Batleth Bladed
Posted - 2006.07.26 08:13:00 - [33]
 

it's intersting to see that there are actually soe intellegent ppl playing eve, not all are blobs with baked potatos for brain :) love the analagy, anyway i think i'm going to go to another one of Dr. Hawkings seminars they are so fascinating

F'nog
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2006.07.26 08:36:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Y'know if we hadn't had some idiot call them black HOLES in the first place, we'd never have had all this redundant argument. They're not holes; just solid objects with an escape velocity higher than c.


Uh, no. They really are holes, as there's nothing in them except for a 1 Plank meter cubic area in the center.

Yoshito Sanders
Amarr
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2006.07.26 08:45:00 - [35]
 

Aagh. God, there's so much half-assed physics and poor descriptions in this thread... It's mindboggling.

The black holes that most people think of are nothing more than the collapsed cores of supermassive stars. Once the fusion process inside one of these stars shuts off, the resulting gravitational attraction of the matter causes it to collapse into a singularity. Though not exactly true (because most black holes spin, which changes things, but for the sake of simplicity), singularities are mathematical points. The mass of the black hole creates an event horizon, beyond which light (and thus everything) cannot escape. Black holes do not "suck" anything in. If the sun was replaced by a blackhole with an equal mass, the Earth and all the planets would continue to rotate around it like normal, as we are outside its event horizon.

Black holes are generally fairly well understood. We know what causes them, how they form, and what happens if you toss a ball into one. We do NOT know what the inside of one looks like (in fact, it is impossible to know this according to General Relativity) and there are some unsolved problems in physics that result from the effects they can have. Most of this is highly experimental, however, and deals with things like virtual particles and information.

Black holes are not wormholes. They are two seperate phenomena that have popularly become confused because the objects were not well understood back in the 50s and 60s and the heyday of the original Star Trek series, and they both have the word "hole" in them.

White holes are possible in some interpretations of General Relativity, but everything I've read on the subject seems to indicate they cannot exist. In fact, the exception in General Relativity usually cancels itself out unless very specific conditions are met.

I am generally loathe to say "Look in Wikipedia" for scientific stuff, but the information on Black holes at Wikipedia is generally sound. In fact, go look at it now. Some of the information is fairly dense unless you know what they're talking about, but it's mostly put into fairly simple terms.

Sensor Error
SensorTech Industries
Posted - 2006.07.26 09:05:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Drizit
The normal explanation is that a black hole is a star that has imploded, the resulting mass has a gravitational force so great that the escape velocity to get away is greater than light speed. Beyond that, we know absolutely nothing about them since we are unable to find anything that has managed to escape from one to examine.

Theories include singularities, wormholes and gateways to other dimensions and many more whacky ideas.

The truth is: Until we manage to find a FTL drive, we will never be able to go inside one to find out the truth. Even if we did have a FTL drive, getting out would be a major problem since the debris being sucked in would impact the ship at a combined speed of twice the speed of light thereby vapourising it. Going in would be a suicide mission so we would still never find out since, if light can't escape, sound will have no chance and therefore we would have no communication with the ship inside.

Ergo, black holes will remain a mystery forever.



Someone who has never watched dr who. Rolling Eyes don't you know that the TARDIS LAUGHS in the face of gravity??

On a serious note, according to the standard model, gravity is caused by a theoretical exchange partical called a graviton. Right? I'm sure I read somewhere that it may be possible to generated anti-gravitons to cancel out the gravitational effect of a black whole and be able to study them.

Also, what about probes that use communication methods other than tradtional radio? There are all sorts of funky properties of quantum mechanics that potentially allow communication... Load up a probe with some, and blast it into a black whole.

Voila, how to get information on a black hole.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2006.07.26 09:44:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Yo****o Sanders
Aagh. God, there's so much half-assed physics and poor descriptions in this thread... It's mindboggling.


... which you then follow up by a description of the action of a blackhole based on a Newtonian model. Rolling Eyes

Noluck Ned
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2006.07.26 09:45:00 - [38]
 

My understanding of the phenomenon was that a Black hole is a Singularity.

A singularity being a unique "Thing" loose in the universe. in this case a point of infinite mass around which space/time is infinatly curved.


Like many things, we are able to observe them without really understanding their function.

There are many many questions about the universe which we may not see answered in our lifetimes, however(as they said in the Matrix, repository of all modern philosophy)
Its the question that drives us: WTF is this universe and what does it do?

However we have discovered that the Really Big Question can only be answered by first asking and answering a cubic craptonne of other questions.

And then we are not even touching on philosophy: The universe exists, therefore it must have a function. There is no way to prove that statement true. We can not even prove that the universe exists outside our own heads.
You could be dreaming that I am here typing this out, I coulde be dreaming that I am responding to a forum post.
Of course we all "KNOW" that we are real, proving it becomes problematic however.

There is so much more that lies waiting to be discovered, past experience has shown that a great number of discoveries are made "on the back" of other earlier discoveries, yesterdays crackpot theory has more than once grown into the foundation for a great many advances.

As for Black holes: One day we may know everthing there is to know about them, that day is not yet. Add em to the long list of questions we would like answers to.

Noluck Ned
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2006.07.26 11:33:00 - [39]
 

Wait wait I know it now, ignore all the above.

Since we know that at the heart of a Black Hole lies a singularity anyone travelling into one will find themselves on the test server.

Its the only plausible answer.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2006.07.26 21:42:00 - [40]
 

Did you know - black holes (can) "burp" Razz

The reason beeing that, if enough mass is around, the growth of a black hole will accelerate, due to it's gravity growing as it "eats" more mass, and thus beeing able to pull in even more mass faster (again, if enough mass is around)


This means that the density of the incomming mass, in the black holes vicinity, increases (more mass per volume)

Now, there's an upper limit to this density, with regards to when you end up with nuclear fusion (what goes on inside a star).

So, if the density gets too large (the black hole is eating too fast), a nuclear explosion gets set of (of insane magnitude - Quasars)

Basically, the black whole eats too fast and ends up burping as a result Razz

A side effect of this burp (again, depending on the mass available), might be that the black hole ends up "starving" itself of more matter, as the explosion, can blow the remaining matter so far away, that the black hole looses it's "control" of it - ie. other gravitational forces becomes more influental


Fun fact about black holes (at least I think so Razz)


Burp Razz



Brannoncyll
The Rip Tide
Posted - 2006.07.26 22:28:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Yo****o Sanders
Aagh. God, there's so much half-assed physics and poor descriptions in this thread... It's mindboggling.



QFT

starvoid
Posted - 2006.07.26 22:46:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Noluck Ned
Since we know that at the heart of a Black Hole lies a singularity anyone travelling into one will find themselves on the test server.



Well you sure cant get on it by logging in. Your theory perfectly explains how the 32 people currently on the test server managed to get in! Anything is possible with a bit of lateral thinking ugh

Kenneys
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2006.07.27 01:40:00 - [43]
 

Umm i thought it was proven quite a few years back by stephen hawkings that anti radiation spewed out. Uncertainty principle lets particles travel slightly faster than speed of light for short periods of time (his theory anyways), hence the black holes were leaking radiation by steady rates.

Ijima Li
Posted - 2006.07.27 01:50:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Ijima Li on 27/07/2006 01:50:30

Nira Li
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2006.07.27 01:51:00 - [45]
 

Huh? I thought that a Black Hole was the same as the Brown Eye Embarassed

MadMaxHellfire
Posted - 2006.07.27 03:56:00 - [46]
 

what's wrong with a newtonian explanation if it's correct?

stellar fusion produces heavier and heavier elements until it hits the "iron" wall, then we get a nova, then the remaining white dwarf will produce even heavier elements, progressively raising its mass
the more the mass the more its gravitational field increases its grasp in a defined reach, and when the escape velocity of this dwarf star will reach light(which may be a quantic phenomenon, but still tied to physics laws of this universe)'s one we have a black hole
very simple

Arkanor
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Posted - 2006.07.27 04:28:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Y'know if we hadn't had some idiot call them black HOLES in the first place, we'd never have had all this redundant argument. They're not holes; just solid objects with an escape velocity higher than c.


Argument officially over. Right answer has been achieved.

Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
Posted - 2006.07.27 04:59:00 - [48]
 

My astronomy professor had a very good analogy about the gravitational pull of a black hole, it went something like this:

One person is standing on the surface of a planet, another is orbiting the planet in a stable orbit.

Suddenly the planet collapses down to the size of say, an atom (I don't know the exact size it would have to be), but still having the same mass.

The person on the surface... is dead. Sad
The person in orbit watched quite a show, and is still in a stable orbit around a now "black hole" Cool

This works because the force between two objects is equal to the gravitational constant times the product of the two masses over the distance between their center points.

So therefore, the person on the surface gets closer to the center of the planet while it collapses (thus the force between them increases), eventually getting crushed into dirt, etc. While the person in orbit experiences exactly the same force as always (mass, distance, gravity, all stay the same).

And remember, all pod pilots trapped within the gravity well of a black hole without enough thrust to escape should manually activate their clones immediately. Any crew should carry out the rest of their lives as best they can; you may be rescued.

Ann Mari
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2006.07.27 06:31:00 - [49]
 

Xailia,

That's a pretty neat description! I can fully understand that! So that's why the other guys in this thread was so against the "sucking" thing. A blackhole will basically only "eat" stuff that would've collided with it in any case, and the "faster than c escape velocity" is not really due to the magnitude of the gravitational pull (read total mass), but more to do with the incredible density, and thus actually the decreased and incredibly short distance between the centers of the "hole" and object being eaten?

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2006.07.27 08:49:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Xailia
My astronomy professor had a very good analogy about the gravitational pull of a black hole, it went something like this:

One person is standing on the surface of a planet, another is orbiting the planet in a stable orbit.

Suddenly the planet collapses down to the size of say, an atom (I don't know the exact size it would have to be), but still having the same mass.

The person on the surface... is dead. Sad
The person in orbit watched quite a show, and is still in a stable orbit around a now "black hole" Cool

This works because the force between two objects is equal to the gravitational constant times the product of the two masses over the distance between their center points.

So therefore, the person on the surface gets closer to the center of the planet while it collapses (thus the force between them increases), eventually getting crushed into dirt, etc. While the person in orbit experiences exactly the same force as always (mass, distance, gravity, all stay the same).


Fantastic description, but wrong.

You see, it assumes that nothing happens to the space between the planet and the person in orbit.

I'll see if I can think of an easy way to describe what happens .. but I may have to resort to horrible science speak. Post soon.

Za Po
Caldari
Posted - 2006.07.27 09:12:00 - [51]
 

Y'know, EVE technology can make you immune to gravity for a (very) short while, enough to go through a singularity (jumpgates). They could go inside a black hole and take a look if they wanted. Laughing

Gogela
Freeport Exploration
Posted - 2006.07.27 19:50:00 - [52]
 

Hmmm... I think you would do well to start looking at GRBs... the word on the street is that periodically black holes build up a force not unlike wigner energy and release it in a gamma ray burst. Neat stuff… I’ve studied astrophysics for a few years now at Colorado State… as far as current thinking goes, a black hole is a x dimensional singularity… because the forces involved exceed what the physics of conventional space-time can deal with, the black hole shifts itself into a higher dimensional object, possibly unfolding dimensions which are otherwise present but passive in normal space. Beyond that, I think we would do better trying to find a better way to access or test for higher dimensions… string theory doesn’t cut it and it would take a long time for a space capsule to make it to Cygnus X-1. YARRRR!!

D Joe
Tired Souls
Free Trade Zone.
Posted - 2006.07.27 20:43:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Za Po
Y'know, EVE technology can make you immune to gravity for a (very) short while, enough to go through a singularity (jumpgates). They could go inside a black hole and take a look if they wanted. Laughing


Stargates and jumpgates do that? Shocked

Stargates and faster-than-light travel are feasable for a supercivilization through the use of exotic matter but first you have to set up a trail at slower-than-light speeds, which is why I liked the idea of stargates in eve (although regular warping should still not be possible). I didn't think going through a singularity was the way it worked in Eve. That actually sounds really convoluted and hard to pull off.

You also have the problem that stargates present the possibility for time travel in OUR universe (although in the eve universe everything seems to be synchronized).

Taale
Minmatar
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:07:00 - [54]
 

Everything in this thread is correct. The origin of a black hole is simple. It is a singularity with a mass so great that its escape velocity has exceeded the speed of light. In that sense, a black hole is simple, and is in no way a hole.

However, I was very surprised that no one bothered to note that the speed of light is a CONSTANT. All modern physics is based on the unforeseen fact that the speed of light is not affected by gravity, nor the doppler effect, nor an atomic reaction. This means that even though the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, light should still be emmitted from the singularity. What complicates things is that there is no light emitted. So where does the light go? Wouldn't the black hole be an infinitely bright hole? 'fraid not. The light's gone. Down the HOLE.

Looking further, I was again surprised when I saw how quickly string theory was disregarded from this thread. String theory can be hard for the skeptic to swallow simply because it's SO simple! To put it as briefly as possible, all string theory implies is that the zero'th dimmension is a point in the third dimmension, the first dimmension is a line in the third dimmension, the second dimmension is a plane in the third dimmension, the third dimmension is a line in the fifth dimmension, the fourth dimmension is a point in the seventh dimmension, etc. The final conclusion is that there are only 10 dimmensions, because the tenth dimmension encompasses all possible outcomes of all possible beginnings for existence.

What does string theory have to do with a black hole? Simple. The black hole is a point. The light enters the point and is gone. This zero'th dimmension is now absorbing energy. If one thinks about the big bang theory, our entire universe spawned from a single point (dimmension zero.) sooo...

That's it.

Kenz Rider
J Club
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:20:00 - [55]
 

Please take this question at face value.

What supporting evidence is there for string theory, that is observations that support the conclusion string theory is the best decription of the universe?

Originally by: Taale
Everything in this thread is correct. The origin of a black hole is simple. It is a singularity with a mass so great that its escape velocity has exceeded the speed of light. In that sense, a black hole is simple, and is in no way a hole.

However, I was very surprised that no one bothered to note that the speed of light is a CONSTANT. All modern physics is based on the unforeseen fact that the speed of light is not affected by gravity, nor the doppler effect, nor an atomic reaction. This means that even though the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, light should still be emmitted from the singularity. What complicates things is that there is no light emitted. So where does the light go? Wouldn't the black hole be an infinitely bright hole? 'fraid not. The light's gone. Down the HOLE.

Looking further, I was again surprised when I saw how quickly string theory was disregarded from this thread. String theory can be hard for the skeptic to swallow simply because it's SO simple! To put it as briefly as possible, all string theory implies is that the zero'th dimmension is a point in the third dimmension, the first dimmension is a line in the third dimmension, the second dimmension is a plane in the third dimmension, the third dimmension is a line in the fifth dimmension, the fourth dimmension is a point in the seventh dimmension, etc. The final conclusion is that there are only 10 dimmensions, because the tenth dimmension encompasses all possible outcomes of all possible beginnings for existence.

What does string theory have to do with a black hole? Simple. The black hole is a point. The light enters the point and is gone. This zero'th dimmension is now absorbing energy. If one thinks about the big bang theory, our entire universe spawned from a single point (dimmension zero.) sooo...

That's it.

Kibare Shinogarim
Posted - 2006.07.27 21:36:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Noluck Ned
However we have discovered that the Really Big Question can only be answered by first asking and answering a cubic craptonne of other questions.


Naaah. We already have the answer: it's 42. The question of the matter really is, WTF is the question?

Del ReyII
Caldari
Shadow Research Inc
Posted - 2006.07.27 22:14:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Kenz Rider
Please take this question at face value.

What supporting evidence is there for string theory, that is observations that support the conclusion string theory is the best decription of the universe?



String theory proposes to unify gravitation and quantum mechanics into a single theory, which newtonian physics is unable to do.
By using colliders like the Fermilab collider, scientists are searching for proof of extra dimensions and therefor proof of string theory. The way they are doing is is through the detection of gravitons, or particles of gravity. As according to the theory Gravity (big G) can pass between dimensions.(the graviton assumed to be the force carrier of the gravitational field as the photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic field)
The aim is to find a theory that predicts the known characteristics of both gravition and particle physics (quantum physics) and at this moment String Theory seems to be the best choice.

Del

D Joe
Tired Souls
Free Trade Zone.
Posted - 2006.07.27 22:28:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Del ReyII


String theory proposes to unify gravitation and quantum mechanics into a single theory, which newtonian physics is unable to do.

Del


Of course Newtonian physics can't. Newtonian physics has nothing to do with quantum mechanics! Laughing

But while String Theory proposes fun new ways of looking at the Universe, it not necessarilly the best or anywhere near the most widely accepted.

Red Ochre
Posted - 2006.07.27 22:41:00 - [59]
 

aside from being in the wrong forum.

lol imagine a system that is off limits in eve....for good reason.... a "traditional" black hole, or whatever type, yadda yadda.

sight seeing would be at your own risk hehe.Twisted Evil

Tsual
Minmatar
Posted - 2006.07.27 22:57:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Tsual on 27/07/2006 22:59:20
Edited by: Tsual on 27/07/2006 22:58:18
Originally by: Taale

However, I was very surprised that no one bothered to note that the speed of light is a CONSTANT.



It is not constant, the speed of light as universal constant c = ca 300000 km/s is an upper boundary which no physical object with mass can pass as there would be not enough energy to further increase its speed.
(But then they broke the sonic barrier which was regarded as unbreachable at that time.)

The actual speed of a light wave in a solid object is slower being easy to calculate by c = 1/sqrt(permeability*permittivity).

Quote:

All modern physics is based on the unforeseen fact that the speed of light is not affected by gravity, nor the doppler effect, nor an atomic reaction.



Afaik:
Doppler effect has to do with waves. The doppler effect shortens or streches the distance between maximas of the wave such increasing or decreasing frequency.
(c= wave length*wave speed)

Quote:

This means that even though the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, light should still be emmitted from the singularity. What complicates things is that there is no light emitted. So where does the light go? Wouldn't the black hole be an infinitely bright hole? 'fraid not. The light's gone. Down the HOLE.



The explanation I once read was more along the lines of space-time being bended so strong that light will need infinite time to get out of the event horizon, but that was using of the einsteinian space-time paradigma no idea what the current one is.

Quote:

Looking further, I was again surprised when I saw how quickly string theory was disregarded from this thread. String theory can be hard for the skeptic to swallow simply because it's SO simple! To put it as briefly as possible, all string theory implies is that the zero'th dimmension is a point in the third dimmension, the first dimmension is a line in the third dimmension, the second dimmension is a plane in the third dimmension, the third dimmension is a line in the fifth dimmension, the fourth dimmension is a point in the seventh dimmension, etc. The final conclusion is that there are only 10 dimmensions, because the tenth dimmension encompasses all possible outcomes of all possible beginnings for existence.

What does string theory have to do with a black hole? Simple. The black hole is a point. The light enters the point and is gone. This zero'th dimmension is now absorbing energy. If one thinks about the big bang theory, our entire universe spawned from a single point (dimmension zero.) sooo...

That's it.


Well if the energy of light is gone then that would violate the energy equality (or how it is called exactly in english) of the system, but again in a multiversum that doesn't matter.Wink


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only