Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Evidence of Black Holes Sucking
Sawopox writes "A bunch of guys a lot smarter than I am managed
to find evidence of matter being sucked into a blackhole at roughly 6.5 million mph. " Yeah, but what kinda mileage does that matter get?
It won't go through the floor if you put it in orbit. You also won't have to put brakes in your car.
Doesn't matter, its all downhill.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Well, since nobody else has said anything relevant,
I bought "The Black Hole" last week, so I guess I should watch it now.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
at that speed you wouldn't feel it coming. You would be crushed before you even felt yourself being pulled towards it.
---Got Coffee?---
Yes, but it is scale that matters. At synchrotrons, electrons hit 5-7 9's or so (.99999-.9999999 c), and protons can be accelated to tremendous rates (a few 9's) as well. Accelerating a kilogram of matter is a vastly, vastly more difficult procedure. Think of it instead of the kinetic energy that the matter has. Each kilogram has a kinetic energy of ~1*10^13 kj. This is equivalent to combusting 10^7 moles of octane, or 6*10^5 kg of gasoline.
I think it is about enough to vaporize one olympic size swimming pool of water. Consider, however, that a good fraction of a stars mass is accelerated, this is a number on the order of 10^30th kg, so the total energy is of the order 10^43 kJ. That _is_ alot. That is about enough to vaporize the earths ocean 10^20 times, or the entire solar system 10^10 times, give or take an order of magnitude or two
Looks like a reply to this comment got sucked into a black hole.
I try to remember that people who deal with their area of specialty do have experience with things which are novel to me. Just last week I noticed there were two astronomical research projects with similar purposes operating independently. I was able to connect them, and left them to figure out for themselves how their differing techniques benefit both of them. They know how to do their jobs.
Accretion disks, almost by definition, are direct evidence of matter being sucked into a massive object, black hole, neutron star, white dwarf, etc. What the article doesn't say is that accretion disks are so hot and dusty that we haven't been able to see what's going on inside them. The finding of Doppler-shifted light allows us to determine, experimentally as opposed to theoretically, the speed of matter within the disk.
Light is not "sucked" into a black hole. It is red-shifted by the gravitational field. Any light that crosses the event horizon is red-shifted to undetectablity by the time it leaves the gravitational field. Light can also be "bent" by going near the strong gravitational field.
Current theory allows for Hawking radiation to escape, at a rate inversely proportional to mass. Black holes of small mass should lose energy so quickly that they explode.
The "tiny region" is relative. The more massive the black hole, the greater the radius of the event horizon, and the more even the gravitational gradient at the event horizon. It is possible that our entire universe is contained within the event horizon of a gigantic black hole. Current theory has difficulty explaining what happens to matter inside the event horizon. The density of matter inside a super-massive black hole would not have to be that great.
Light is not red-shifted as it "speeds away from the Earth", except for a very minor gravitational effect. Red (or blue) shifting is due entirely to the relative velocities of the observers.
Since the speed of light is constant, one must assume that they mean the red-shift from the light indicated that the matter was moving along at this speed relative to "stationary" gas of the disk.
The only way scientists have been able to ``see'' them up to now is by looking at the accretion disks
"How old are you in light-years?" "Why, about 30 feet."Or by observing the wobble of a star paired to a singularity. Other, so far unsuccessful, possibilities include observing gravitational lensing effects, and gravitons.
Welllllllll Mabbby. You also have to consider that time would be going much slower in your pants than in your brains. So maby your head could keep up with your pants. But it's been too long sense I took my physics courses, and I don't care too look it up again. Anyone care to do the math, would time slow down relative to position to keep you intact? (Not the mention the fact that to an outside observer you would never reach the center.)
Here's a good phrase to remember considering matter and gravity: Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve.
I think a common misconception is that the matter still has to exist at the singularity. There is no requirement. Some may describe a black hole as a point in which a certain radius, no communication can exist outside thereof. But I think the best definition of a black hole would be the set of all points in which space-time converges instead of diverges. All that is needed is the point of convergence, in which a large mass initially created. Any point traveling within the even horizon has no choice but to hit the singularity. The more mass entering curves the point of convergance steeper, but, its not the mass that may or not exist that affects the further warping. Its the mass flowing down into the black hole. To go into further detail, gravity is bound to particles by the hypothetical particle called the graviton. Further there is a field called the Higgs field that affects only particles that gravitons may attach. The Higgs field could either rule out the graviton, the graviton it, they both might exist, or neither. But the interesting thing is that the Higgs fields seems to be a more-or-less overlay of spacetime that affects the warping of space-time. It also seems that the speed of light limitation is connected to the Higgs field. The three neutrinos for example, do not appear to be connected to the Higgs field. The photon does appear to be connected to the Higgs field but not to a graviton as a photon has no mass yet is affected by gravity.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Well accually we guess mass of stars based upon how they affect other stellar objects. And to figure that out we have to figure out the mass of the stellar objects its affecting. Ultimatly the mass of most stars have been figured out, but honestly its alot of guess work. Pretty damn good, scientifically based guess work, but never the less alot fo guess work.
I forget who to attribute this idea to but here it is in a condensed form:
You build a large city around black hole that is circular in cross-section from any particular reference around the black hole (or non existent for part-spheres). If your city is rigid enough it won't go crashing into the black hole. Now have people live in the city. Lots of trash. Fill up a cargo ship with the trash and undock it. Let the ship descend relatively close (for a ship of course) to the event horizon. At this point release all the trash (as in detaching 95% of your ship) and soar away. The important thing here is that you are travelling tangentally with the event horizon so that the trash drops off in an almost direct path to the black hole and your ship travels in an upward arc toward your space station. Once you recapture the energy of the ship (which will be VERY economical if I remember correctly) you shouldn't have too many power requirements for your city. You'll have to remember to bring in alot of materials to make alot of trash.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I am no scientist, but from what I hear is that the potential force that existed in singularity outweighted the gravitational force being exerted. Basically you had what was a spring that was being wound tighter and tighter until the force of that spring pushing out was greater than the force pushing in till it finally split, suppositivly the force was go great that the singularity, or whatever you want to call it, litterly turned inside out, and errupted into our universe.
some quick calulations....
6,500,000 MPH = 2,905,760 Meters/Sec = 2.9e6
Speed of Light = 299,792,458 Meters/Sec = 3.0e8
if you figure this out, you get the fact that it is only traveling at less then 1% the speed of light (the theoretical limit). now lets see how Relatively stacks up agenst say a 1 kg particle.
m=mo/sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))
This brings the relative Mass to 1.000047 kg or a ~.005% diffrence in mass. No big deal... Havent they goten particals up to 10% the speed of light before in mass accelerators.
As a believer in the Heisenberg-Bohr tranquilizing philosophy I can only contest this statement. It was contrived many years ago that black holes were not actually of physical existence but of a pseudo-perceptual existence, one which could only be brought upon by an intellectual being or beings (in this case the so-called 'astronomers' who are making this claim) thinking about seeing this phenomena taking place. However if we allow for an assumption that these so-called 'black holes' really do exist, we can easily put down the statement they've made regarding 'seeing matter being sucked into a black hole', where the 'black hole' they make reference to is claimed to be 'a dense region where extremely strong gravity sucks in everything, including light'. We can do this by applying this basic principle: consolidated holes in Heisenberg antiferromagnets are always drawn towards each other at rather large distances. This goes hand in hand with the Casimir force, which further substantiates my claim, it is caused by the alteration of the quantum zero-point spin wave energy. With the deficiency of a long-range Coulomb repellency among the holes, such an inclination introduces an instability of any charge-ordered state in the dilute doping hindrance. Therefore the 'black hole' of everyday understanding can not 'suck' at more than 6 million mph, or even 3 million mp3.
Wouldn't a Blackhole eventually consume all the matter in its galaxy?
Nope. A black hole doesn't have any more mass than the star it originally came from (plus whatever matter has been sucked in).
Now, since stars are roughly spherical in shape, the center of mass is the center of the star, which is where the black hole is now. So once you get as far away from the black hole as the surface of the star was from its center, a black hole's gravitational pull is no stronger than that of the star itself. It's only when you get inside that radius that trouble begins.
Naturally the radius grows as more matter gets sucked into the black hole, but nothing short of an entire planet (and even then we're talking a planet the size of Saturn) is going to change the radius by any significant amount.
No, I'm not a physicist, by the way.
Please, let's not make any Monica Lewinsky jokes here, OK?
--