Black Holes?

I was just mulling over the models of electromagnetism and photonic models, as I was the other day, which can be found in this earlier thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


In today's ponder, I wondered, what would happen if you were to project streams of particles at varying intervals, and these particles happened to essentially be black holes at roughly 1/5 the size of an electron.

Take that, and then consider that these miniature black holes are traveling at light speed. What would the effects of this be? Unobservable mass?


Open to any ideas.

And not to be cheeky, but are all atomic particles and photons, spheres? I believe electrons have been proven to be spheres, correct? It would make sense to me that photons, which regularly interact with electrons, would be spheres too, I guess. As for the nucleic particles, that hole situation has got me really wondering when it comes to the visual models.

reply to post by Soloro


I think the end part of this video shows what would happen...

I am just trying to understand you completely.

From what I gather, I am not sure that what you are saying would be possible.


I believe that singularity of that size would collapse on itself.
I don't think the velocity would change that.


So, as my understanding of what you are saying, this is more of a mental exercise?

Originally posted by KingAtlas
I am just trying to understand you completely.

From what I gather, I am not sure that what you are saying would be possible.


I believe that singularity of that size would collapse on itself.
I don't think the velocity would change that.


So, as my understanding of what you are saying, this is more of a mental exercise?

I'm suggesting that this is what photons may be, or may be like..

To answer your question fully, ehh, yes and no.

Firstly, when we think of black holes, we think of collapsed stars ranging from a few centimeters in diameter to the size of our solar system, with IMMENSE mass. They spin, they don't spin, they don't move too fast relative to stars and galaxies.

I'm postulating teeny tiny black holes, smaller than electrons, that are moving at the speed of light or faster. Not only would their mass be much less simply due to their size, but the speed may make them almost impossible to observe as having mass, despite them being able to interact with mass bodies.

Also, considering that thoughts are mostly electrochemical patterns in a 4 billion year evolved electromagnetic brain that senses electromagnetism, with organs (Eyes) specifically designed to respond to photons, along with our pineal gland having eye-like structures within it...

I'd say it's more than, just an excersise.



More like a walk in Sagitarrius A, otherwise known as the super massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

Originally posted by Soloro
In today's ponder, I wondered, what would happen if you were to project streams of particles at varying intervals, and these particles happened to essentially be black holes at roughly 1/5 the size of an electron.

Take that, and then consider that these miniature black holes are traveling at light speed. What would the effects of this be? Unobservable mass?

If they have mass they can't travel at light speed, but you already knew that right?

If stationary they would immediately explode:

Black Hole

To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter.

If a black hole is very small the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car would have a diameter of about 10^−24 m and take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun.

That example is for a black hole with the mass of a car. Were you thinking of a black hole with a mass greater than, less than, or equal to the mass of a car? We don't really know the size of an electron very precisely so mass would a be better yardstick to use.

If traveling near the speed of light, then their lifetime would depend on which reference frame you observed them from. Time dilation would slow the explosion down from certain reference frames and stretch out that nanosecond explosion a bit, but they would still explode in one nanosecond if your reference frame was a spaceship traveling alongside them. The larger black hole you mention would last a hair longer but still just a tiny fraction of a second.

200 times brighter than the sun from something too small to see, that's pretty cool, right?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Definition:

lu·mi·nos·i·ty/ˌlo͞oməˈnäsətē/
Noun:

Luminous quality: "acrylic colors retain freshness and luminosity".
The intrinsic brightness of a celestial object (as distinct from its apparent brightness diminished by distance).

But aren't black holes called black because they can't be seen? They don't radiate light so how would a super tiny black hole have any luminosity at all?

ETA: After rereading it seems only during the evaporation it would have that luminosity correct? BTW, love your profile pic! What nebula is that?

reply to post by thov420


You are correct, the black hole can't be seen, and is never seen even when it evaporates with the intensity of 200 suns. This sounds like a nonsensical paradox, but it's not. The nature of Hawking radiation is such that the radiation forms (in part) outside the event horizon, which is not part of the black hole, and that's why it can be seen. You still can never see the black hole itself. Google Hawking radiation.

All black holes theoretically emit Hawking radiation (though experimental confirmation of this is still pending), and are therefore "evaporating" that radiation to some degree, however the competing process is the radiation they absorb from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). If the black hole is more massive than the moon, the evaporation does not exceed absorption from the CMB so the black hole grows in mass, and if it's less massive than the moon, evaporation does exceed absorption from the CMB so it's shrinking. I suppose if the black hole has precisely the right mass about the mass of the moon it would neither grow nor shrink, but that balance wouldn't last forever as the CMB temperature is decreasing.

My avatar is part of the pillars of creation in the Eagle nebula where new solar systems are being formed...it's a stellar nursery and one of the most famous Hubble telescope images. Of course I think it's pretty cool too which is why I used it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Soloro
In today's ponder, I wondered, what would happen if you were to project streams of particles at varying intervals, and these particles happened to essentially be black holes at roughly 1/5 the size of an electron.

Take that, and then consider that these miniature black holes are traveling at light speed. What would the effects of this be? Unobservable mass?

If they have mass they can't travel at light speed, but you already knew that right?

If stationary they would immediately explode:

Black Hole

To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter.

If a black hole is very small the radiation effects are expected to become very strong. Even a black hole that is heavy compared to a human would evaporate in an instant. A black hole the weight of a car would have a diameter of about 10^−24 m and take a nanosecond to evaporate, during which time it would briefly have a luminosity more than 200 times that of the sun.

That example is for a black hole with the mass of a car. Were you thinking of a black hole with a mass greater than, less than, or equal to the mass of a car? We don't really know the size of an electron very precisely so mass would a be better yardstick to use.

If traveling near the speed of light, then their lifetime would depend on which reference frame you observed them from. Time dilation would slow the explosion down from certain reference frames and stretch out that nanosecond explosion a bit, but they would still explode in one nanosecond if your reference frame was a spaceship traveling alongside them. The larger black hole you mention would last a hair longer but still just a tiny fraction of a second.

200 times brighter than the sun from something too small to see, that's pretty cool, right?

edit on 20-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

You know, for some reason I don't fully believe that mass is incapable of traveling at light speed, I really just can't cave into that notion, even with the mathematics behind it. I need more, call it a speculation if anything.

That is some very interesting information indeed. I remember reading briefly about the luminosity of a small black hole upon evaporation. Incredible stuff, but once again, very little actual observation of the phenomenon. It's kind of reminiscent of the UFO phenomenon, except with far less observational data lol.

I guess my thinking on it was that if space-time physics are not well understood, but are thought to change greatly within a black hole, along with time-space physics being altered by traveling at such a speed, then perhaps some type of resonating properties would propagate, where the black holes would become stable in their small size/mass, and would indeed radiate energy in the form of perceived electromagnetic flux, dependent upon the stream wavelength. Although, considering the wave form of light and how frequency determines intensity, but then considering the particulate form, and the amplitude or, once again, intensity, it becomes confusing and contradictory. Is the actual flux of light determined by the angle at which the stream hits the reference surface, along with how many total "streams" of the wavelengths there are?

Originally posted by Soloro
You know, for some reason I don't fully believe that mass is incapable of traveling at light speed, I really just can't cave into that notion, even with the mathematics behind it. I need more, call it a speculation if anything.

I take it you're not familiar with the LHC where particles travel at essentially the speed of light, just a hair under? It's not just mathematics, because the LHC accelerates particles at those velocities and the math is confirmed. If the math was wrong, then a few protons wouldn't possibly have the energy of 160 lbs of TNT at those speeds, but they do. So there is more than the math, if you care to look for it.

I guess my thinking on it was that if space-time physics are not well understood, but are thought to change greatly within a black hole, along with time-space physics being altered by traveling at such a speed, then perhaps some type of resonating properties would propagate, where the black holes would become stable in their small size/mass, and would indeed radiate energy in the form of perceived electromagnetic flux, dependent upon the stream wavelength. Although, considering the wave form of light and how frequency determines intensity, but then considering the particulate form, and the amplitude or, once again, intensity, it becomes confusing and contradictory. Is the actual flux of light determined by the angle at which the stream hits the reference surface, along with how many total "streams" of the wavelengths there are?

My best guess at an answer to what I think you're trying to ask is, the reason it's colder in the winter than in the summer is the sun's light gets spread out over a larger area due to the angle it hits the Earth's surface. If the sun is shining straight down in the summer you might get 1000 watts per square meter, but in the winter or at a higher latitude if the same 1000 watts is spread out over 2 square meters of the Earth's surface because of the angle, that's only 500 watts per square meter, and that's why it's colder in the winter.

We don't know what happens inside a black hole, and I'm a little curious about it but not curious enough to go inside one to find out since I could never get back out. Sending a probe in won't help since the probe has no way to send its data out. So unless someone really clever find out a way to measure what's inside, we may as well speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as it doesn't seem likely we'll know the answer to either in the foreseeable future.

According to the "No Hair theorem" it doesn't really matter what's inside (unless you plan to go inside, good luck with that). "The no-hair theorem states that, once it achieves a stable condition after formation, a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum." (from the Wiki on black holes) and once we know those things we can calculate how it will interact with other objects outside it. Whatever is inside won't affect that.

I've never seen any support for your thoughts about how light might escape from a black hole but if you can back it up, and find some black holes that way, you might win the nobel prize for that as it would turn science upside down which should be good for a Nobel prize. Actually we would probably have to rename them since they won't be black holes anymore. And of course there is evidence against that idea already. We've indirectly observed black holes, and found no light emissions from them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Soloro
You know, for some reason I don't fully believe that mass is incapable of traveling at light speed, I really just can't cave into that notion, even with the mathematics behind it. I need more, call it a speculation if anything.

I take it you're not familiar with the LHC where particles travel at essentially the speed of light, just a hair under? It's not just mathematics, because the LHC accelerates particles at those velocities and the math is confirmed. If the math was wrong, then a few protons wouldn't possibly have the energy of 160 lbs of TNT at those speeds, but they do. So there is more than the math, if you care to look for it.

I guess my thinking on it was that if space-time physics are not well understood, but are thought to change greatly within a black hole, along with time-space physics being altered by traveling at such a speed, then perhaps some type of resonating properties would propagate, where the black holes would become stable in their small size/mass, and would indeed radiate energy in the form of perceived electromagnetic flux, dependent upon the stream wavelength. Although, considering the wave form of light and how frequency determines intensity, but then considering the particulate form, and the amplitude or, once again, intensity, it becomes confusing and contradictory. Is the actual flux of light determined by the angle at which the stream hits the reference surface, along with how many total "streams" of the wavelengths there are?

My best guess at an answer to what I think you're trying to ask is, the reason it's colder in the winter than in the summer is the sun's light gets spread out over a larger area due to the angle it hits the Earth's surface. If the sun is shining straight down in the summer you might get 1000 watts per square meter, but in the winter or at a higher latitude if the same 1000 watts is spread out over 2 square meters of the Earth's surface because of the angle, that's only 500 watts per square meter, and that's why it's colder in the winter.

We don't know what happens inside a black hole, and I'm a little curious about it but not curious enough to go inside one to find out since I could never get back out. Sending a probe in won't help since the probe has no way to send its data out. So unless someone really clever find out a way to measure what's inside, we may as well speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as it doesn't seem likely we'll know the answer to either in the foreseeable future.

According to the "No Hair theorem" it doesn't really matter what's inside (unless you plan to go inside, good luck with that). "The no-hair theorem states that, once it achieves a stable condition after formation, a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum." (from the Wiki on black holes) and once we know those things we can calculate how it will interact with other objects outside it. Whatever is inside won't affect that.

I've never seen any support for your thoughts about how light might escape from a black hole but if you can back it up, and find some black holes that way, you might win the nobel prize for that as it would turn science upside down which should be good for a Nobel prize. Actually we would probably have to rename them since they won't be black holes anymore. And of course there is evidence against that idea already. We've indirectly observed black holes, and found no light emissions from them.

Yes I'm very familiar with the Large Hadron Collider, particle accelerator which I believe to be about a mile in diameter or some such great distance.

I've read several articles about tests from their, including the Higgs-Boson particle, and Fermilabs announcement last year, as well as the LHC announcement this year.

I think that we delved deep into the breadth of understanding, but not into the quality of understanding on an applications level. Which makes sense considering the gross imbalance of quantity over quality these days...

Anyway. I've taken astrophysics courses in the past, along with other physics courses utilizing multivariable calculus and that jargon.

As for black hole light emissions, Im sure the size matters, but the central super massive black hole in the milky way was observed to be emitting an hourglass shaped light cloud above and below consisted of x-ray and gamma ray electromagnetism.

Anyway, it was just a wild theory, but interesting enough to tickle the brain right?

Originally posted by Soloro
As for black hole light emissions, Im sure the size matters, but the central super massive black hole in the milky way was observed to be emitting an hourglass shaped light cloud above and below consisted of x-ray and gamma ray electromagnetism.

I doubt it, but if you have a link to that I'd like to read it.

What's far more likely is that the emissions are coming not from the black hole, but from matter in the vicinity of the black hole. That's a big difference. And you should know all this stuff if you took those courses.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


you dont think it would be worth it to send a probe toward the black hole in the middle of our galaxy, to get a better view of it? use the strongest material to send a large teather with highest power camera at the end shot out towards the probe,,?

is that very very impossible with todays technology, and it would take very very long time to get near?

are there any really good telescope images of our black hole? id expect there to be since we can see pretty detailed versions of galaxies far away,,, id think we can use our satellite telescopes to image the center of our galaxy?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
you dont think it would be worth it to send a probe toward the black hole in the middle of our galaxy, to get a better view of it? use the strongest material to send a large teather with highest power camera at the end shot out towards the probe,,?

is that very very impossible with todays technology, and it would take very very long time to get near?

are there any really good telescope images of our black hole? id expect there to be since we can see pretty detailed versions of galaxies far away,,, id think we can use our satellite telescopes to image the center of our galaxy?

This is the best image I've ever seen of a black hole, but if anybody has seen a better one, show it:

www.physicscentral.com...

Of course we can't see it, but we can see the effect on all the matter around it (This shows the stars that orbit it, perhaps dust and gas that's near it which is accelerated can also be seen emitting radiation though it's not part of this image.)

Regarding a probe, I think the nearest black hole we know of so far is about 8000 light years away, which would take voyager 1 over 128 million years to reach. That's a bit long, don't you think?

We'd either have to find a closer black hole, or develop new propulsion technology for the probe. Both of course may happen in the future. The black hole you mentioned in the middle of our galaxy is even further away, over 416 million years to reach with voyager 1 speed.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"We'd either have to find a closer black hole, or develop new propulsion technology for the probe. Both of course may happen in the future. The black hole you mentioned in the middle of our galaxy is even further away, over 416 million years to reach with voyager 1 speed."

okok... and if we can take relatively nice images of galaxies very far away,, how can we not telescope a decent image of the black hole in the middle of our galaxy? besides it not emitting light,,, isnt is so massive? wouldnt we be able to hold a satellite in its direction and view the many stars near it to make an outline of the black hole,,,

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

okok... and if we can take relatively nice images of galaxies very far away,, how can we not telescope a decent image of the black hole in the middle of our galaxy? besides it not emitting light,,, isnt is so massive? wouldnt we be able to hold a satellite in its direction and view the many stars near it to make an outline of the black hole,,,

The super massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way has never been imaged. Its presence has been inferred by analyzing the orbits of the stars at the center for 5-10 years.

There is a project, The Event Horizon Telescope, using many computer linked radio-telescopes to create a virtual radio-telescope with a dish the size of the earth. The intent is to produce a high-def image of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. It has been in progress for a while;but, they have many more linkups to go. I think the goal is 50 for the first high-def image and it is intended to keep adding to the system.

The idea of sending a probe to monitor a black hole is interesting. Considering that it has been estimated that there might be millions of wandering black holes in the Milky Way, I wonder how difficult it would be for a team of dedicated astronomers to locate the closest one?

I often find myself thinking about black holes and wondering how many years,decades or even centuries it will be until our knowledge of the singularity is not so dark. I know that for me, at 65, I don't think I'll be around when the first advancement is made. Perhaps I'll have my daughter engrave "Just another pile of physicist ashes, still wondering" on my cremation urn. Maybe I should get the urn made now. The great thing about retirement is the time that I have to spend not only here but on physics forums and just looking around.

reply to post by willyclem


If we are ever done wondering what then?

Originally posted by ImaFungi


are there any really good telescope images of our black hole? id expect there to be since we can see pretty detailed versions of galaxies far away,,, id think we can use our satellite telescopes to image the center of our galaxy?

The black holes at the center of galaxies are orbited by so many stars and so much gas that they are hidden to our telescopes except indirectly like the image posted above.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
okok... and if we can take relatively nice images of galaxies very far away,, how can we not telescope a decent image of the black hole in the middle of our galaxy? besides it not emitting light,,, isnt is so massive? wouldnt we be able to hold a satellite in its direction and view the many stars near it to make an outline of the black hole,,,

You aren't stating your question very clearly. It seems to me that I just showed what you suggest, the view of many stars near the black hole.

There is another type of indirect observation which might be made, that of a black hole lensing an object behind it as shown in this simulation:

en.wikipedia.org...


We've never seen anything quite that dramatic, and I doubt we ever will since it would be so highly unusual for two such objects to cross paths in such a manner. I think there may have been more subtle observations that wouldn't impress you very much, where a distant object seemed to get slightly brighter for a brief period and we think it might have been due to a black hole passing in front of it having a gravitational lensing effect. I can't play this video anymore, and I don't know if you can, but I think something like that might be mentioned here, though correct me if I'm wrong:

Alex Filippenko on gravitational bending of light

In any case, all observations would be indirect, even the measurement of Hawking radiation would be an indirect observation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Soloro
As for black hole light emissions, Im sure the size matters, but the central super massive black hole in the milky way was observed to be emitting an hourglass shaped light cloud above and below consisted of x-ray and gamma ray electromagnetism.

I doubt it, but if you have a link to that I'd like to read it.

What's far more likely is that the emissions are coming not from the black hole, but from matter in the vicinity of the black hole. That's a big difference. And you should know all this stuff if you took those courses.

I already considered that. I think that the specific process going on there is more than just accelerated matter...

Furthermore, I have directly observed the condescending rhetoric that you have portrayed in this thread, several times now, and it has left me feeling compelled to regard your clarity of thinking as "just as valid " as that of my own.

Congratulations you've just been sucked into my black hole :

Black Hole Emission at center of Milky Way



Detailed:
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Soloro
Congratulations

you've just been sucked into my black hole

:

Detailed:
www.nasa.gov...

If you read that source then you know it mentions two possibilities, one of which is what I suggested of matter being accelerated toward the black hole, and neither of which is what you suggested of radiation coming from the black hole itself:

One possibility includes a particle jet from the supermassive black hole at the galactic center. In many other galaxies, astronomers see fast particle jets powered by matter falling toward a central black hole. While there is no evidence the Milky Way's black hole has such a jet today, it may have in the past. The bubbles also may have formed as a result of gas outflows from a burst of star formation, perhaps the one that produced many massive star clusters in the Milky Way's center several million years ago.

I don't really understand your thought process when you post a source which confirms my claim, fails to confirm your claim, and yet you persist in the notion that your claim is just as valid as mine.