Exploring Black Hole Anatomy: The Singularity, Event Horizon, and Photon Sphere

[zhermes]

It was specifically in reference to your comment that:

That is, the time dilation may be so severe that the matter inside the event horizon just doesn't have enough time to collapse any significant amount before the black hole evaporates.

Those studies have shown singularity formation in finite coordinate (and proper) time---but you're right, I'm not sure exactly how long (but I think its on the order of a dynamical time), and in how diverse situations; good keeping me on my toes.

But going back to the initial point; the event horizon can definitely form stably. We agree that the singularity itself is completely questionable---so that part doesn't really matter. My overall argument is that we are really really confident event horizons can form; and quantum mechanics (string theory etc etc) only suggest GR breaks something like 50 orders of magnitude closer to the center of the BH than the event horizon... so there doesn't seem to be a reason to expect GR to break near the EH...

(Unless you're looking at a near-extremal kerr black-hole---which we believe exist---in which case the singularity itself can be very near the event horizon.

 

[bill alsept]

The nature of the material within the event horizon doesn't matter in general relativity.

Mabey not in GR but it does matter to the anatomy of black holes and the point of this conversation. GR has trouble explaining some things and obviously black holes are one of them.

There is no such thing as 'a particle so much smaller than anything else'---

How can anyone say there are no particles smaller. Didn,t they original name the atom becuase they thought it could not be divided anymore? We know quarks are made from something smaller, maybe that will be the next think we discover.

 

[zhermes]

Mabey not in GR but it does matter to the anatomy of black holes and the point of this conversation. GR has trouble explaining some things and obviously black holes are one of them.

I've already told you the answer according to string theory; nothing else applies.

How can anyone say there are no particles smaller. Didn,t they original name the atom becuase they thought it could not be divided anymore? We know quarks are made from something smaller, maybe that will be the next think we discover.

Quarks are not made of something smaller---they are fundamental particles. Fundamental particles are points---i.e. no finite size--and thus, again, nothing can be smaller. Additionally the concept of 'size' of a particle doesn't really apply in this regime (unless you're talking about string theory), and as I said before, in that case you have a Planck-sized mass at the center of the (schwarschild) black-hole.

 

[bill alsept]

I've already told you the answer according to string theory; nothing else applies.

I'm sorry but that sounds to much like a religious answer. The nature of the material within the event horizon would matter. If like you say it doesn't matter to GR then who cares. It’s still there and would matters to everything else.

Why do black holes need to be so mysterious? Why can't they just be like every other mass. Just because g has an escape velocity faster than light who cares. Everything is still there we just can't see it. If we ever find a way to see black holes I would bet that the body of the black hole has an actual diameter and that its growing.

Quarks are not made of something smaller---they are fundamental particles. Fundamental particles are points---i.e. no finite size--and thus, again, nothing can be smaller. Additionally the concept of 'size' of a particle doesn't really apply in this regime (unless you're talking about string theory), and as I said before, in that case you have a Planck-sized mass at the center of the (schwarschild) black-hole.

You can't say quarks are fundamental without proof. We may one day find that there are many smaller levels. I think one clue that quarks are made of smaller parts is that quarks react with other quarks. Whatever force they use to accomplish this may come from within each one so they could have some sub parts or moving parts to cause these forces, fields or phenomenon. Just a thought

 

[zhermes]

Consult the PF Forums rules on overly speculative posts. The burden is not on me to prove the established canon, nor to disprove your personal theory of the universe.

 

[twofish-quant]

You can't say quarks are fundamental without proof.

Mathematicians deal with proof. Physicists deal with evidence.

The reason we know that protons are not point particles is that if you ram two protons together you get scattering angles that are consistent with sub-structure. If you ram quarks and electrons together, you get scattering that is consistent with point particles.

Also thermodynamics and QM provide some limits on the types of viable preon models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

Essentially if quarks had substructure, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would cause enough momentum uncertainty to be larger than the rest mass of the particle. There are also thermodynamic limits. If you have substructure you change the statistics of matter and so that changes its thermal properties.

There are ways of getting around those limits, but right now the experimental data is consistent with non-substructure and there are some very strong limits as to what theories are consistent with observations.

We may one day find that there are many smaller levels.

We've looked. We haven't found anything, and we have evidence that there is nothing there to be found.

I think one clue that quarks are made of smaller parts is that quarks react with other quarks. Whatever force they use to accomplish this may come from within each one so they could have some sub parts or moving parts to cause these forces, fields or phenomenon. Just a thought

Look up "preon"

 

[twofish-quant]

How can it collapse further and why does it have to? Can't a black hole be so dense that there is no space left inside? An area filled 100% complete with the smallest partials the universe has to offer. There would be no more area to collapse to.

Won't work. What happens is that as you increase the gravity, the number of possible energy states for the particles increase so that the pressure necessary to keep the particles from collapsing disappears.

This is a general argument that works with any set of particles.

I realize my original question most likely cannot be answered because we don’t know how small those first particles are or how many have accumulated in the black hole.

Doesn't matter, the smaller the particles, the faster the collapse. As long as special relativity is correct, then given enough gravity, things are unstable to collapse. If special relativity is wrong, then you tell me what the rules are.

 

[twofish-quant]

I understand pressure is required to supports a balloons surface but not so simple on a bowling ball. Why is pressure needed on a complely solid object?

Pressure is what makes a solid object a solid.

 

[bill alsept]

Mathematicians deal with proof. Physicists deal with evidence.

The reason we know that protons are not point particles is that if you ram two protons together you get scattering angles that are consistent with sub-structure. If you ram quarks and electrons together, you get scattering that is consistent with point particles.

Also thermodynamics and QM provide some limits on the types of viable preon models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

Essentially if quarks had substructure, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would cause enough momentum uncertainty to be larger than the rest mass of the particle. There are also thermodynamic limits. If you have substructure you change the statistics of matter and so that changes its thermal properties.

There are ways of getting around those limits, but right now the experimental data is consistent with non-substructure and there are some very strong limits as to what theories are consistent with observations.



We've looked. We haven't found anything, and we have evidence that there is nothing there to be found.



Look up "preon"

Thank You for good answers.

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe the smallest particles in the universe only have space between them because they are each liberated and going through some repeated cycles of their own. When they are finally corralled and pushed together to the point they can no longer be liberated or move they loose any effect or phenomena they caused before.

That makes things worse.

The reason that solids are solids is because you've filled up all of the available energy states and to kick a particle into a higher energy state takes a lot of energy. If you create additional particles, then you increase the number of energy states, and things become softer.

One way of thinking about this is imagine getting hit by a brick. And getting hit by a pile of sand. Because there are more ways that the sand can move, it's a lot softer, and this sort of thing happens at the subatomic level.

Could it even be possible that a black hole goes completely cold at the center? And would need no support again leading to the idea that the singularity may have a diameter instead of being a point?

When you have no evidence then anything is possible. It's possible that the black hole goes completely cold. It's also possible that the singularity turns into trained dancing penguins. When you don't know, you don't know.

 

[twofish-quant]

Sorry, I am not trying to beat a dead horse here but I am talking about after neutron degeneracy pressure of the neutron star and any other stages of collapse a body of mass may go through including the stage of converting to a black hole. Which I think is the same as all the other stages where the escape velocity just rises another notch. In this case it rises above the speed of light. But after that stage what stages are there and eventually you get to a particle that are so much smaller than anything else. There would be no other place to collapse to.

Small particles makes things collapse faster. The reason things stop collapsing is that you've filled up all of the energy states. Once you increase gravity, the energy levels change so that you have empty stops that open up. If you create new particles, the number of energy states increases even more so things will collapse faster.

 

[twofish-quant]

Why do black holes need to be so mysterious? Why can't they just be like every other mass.

I don't think that black holes are mysterious. The singularity in the middle of a black hole, on the other hand...

Just because g has an escape velocity faster than light who cares. Everything is still there we just can't see it. If we ever find a way to see black holes I would bet that the body of the black hole has an actual diameter and that its growing.

There's a basic problem.

Suppose you have an infinitely stiff stick. I push the stick on earth, then instantly the end of the stick on the moon moves. Uh. Oh. I just transmitted information faster than light, and that's a no-no. So the speed of light puts limits on how stiff something is.

So let's think of something else. I hit a table. The atoms in the table change directions and creates a force that pushes back. Now let's suppose I have something that is traveling near the speed of light. Since I can't push it past the speed of light, if I push on something that near the speed of light, it doesn't change speed very much. No matter how much energy I put into it, it won't go past the speed of light.

This presents a problem. Suppose I have a table and the particles in it are vibrating at close to the speed of light. If I hit that table, the particles won't react, and so I won't get a force in the other direction. So if I hit a table with particles moving at close to the speed of light, then my hand will fall through the table, and since the particles don't react with each other, solid objects are impossible once you have particles that are moving at close to light speed.

So the net result is that it doesn't matter what the table is made of. It doesn't matter how many particles there are. Once I crush the table enough so that the particles are moving near light speed, it will cease acting like a solid object. Having smaller particles makes the problem *worse* since it's easier to push a particle to light speed.

This means that if Einstein is right, things will get crushed to nothing. Now this leads to some absurd situations, so we are pretty sure he is wrong. The trouble is that no one knows *how* he is wrong.

 

[bill alsept]

I don't think that black holes are mysterious. The singularity in the middle of a black hole, on the other hand...
There's a basic problem.

Suppose you have an infinitely stiff stick. I push the stick on earth, then instantly the end of the stick on the moon moves. Uh. Oh. I just transmitted information faster than light, and that's a no-no. So the speed of light puts limits on how stiff something is.

So let's think of something else. I hit a table. The atoms in the table change directions and creates a force that pushes back. Now let's suppose I have something that is traveling near the speed of light. Since I can't push it past the speed of light, if I push on something that near the speed of light, it doesn't change speed very much. No matter how much energy I put into it, it won't go past the speed of light.

This presents a problem. Suppose I have a table and the particles in it are vibrating at close to the speed of light. If I hit that table, the particles won't react, and so I won't get a force in the other direction. So if I hit a table with particles moving at close to the speed of light, then my hand will fall through the table, and since the particles don't react with each other, solid objects are impossible once you have particles that are moving at close to light speed.

So the net result is that it doesn't matter what the table is made of. It doesn't matter how many particles there are. Once I crush the table enough so that the particles are moving near light speed, it will cease acting like a solid object. Having smaller particles makes the problem *worse* since it's easier to push a particle to light speed.

This means that if Einstein is right, things will get crushed to nothing. Now this leads to some absurd situations, so we are pretty sure he is wrong. The trouble is that no one knows *how* he is wrong.

Thank you, I like the way you describe things. Very insightful and interesting. I too think there is a problem and would like to discuss this more but it seems I get scolded every time I even begin to get speculative. Thanks again

 

[bill alsept]

Small particles makes things collapse faster. The reason things stop collapsing is that you've filled up all of the energy states. Once you increase gravity, the energy levels change so that you have empty stops that open up. If you create new particles, the number of energy states increases even more so things will collapse faster.

Can you explain this one another way?
Thanks

 

[bill alsept]

There's a basic problem.

Suppose you have an infinitely stiff stick. I push the stick on earth, then instantly the end of the stick on the moon moves. Uh. Oh. I just transmitted information faster than light, and that's a no-no. So the speed of light puts limits on how stiff something is.

I know this is speculating (not overly I hope) but what if the speed of light was not the end all. What if that’s all the faster it could go because of some unknown resistance. It appears gravity out does the speed of light why not other things?

 

[Chalnoth]

I know this is speculating (not overly I hope) but what if the speed of light was not the end all. What if that’s all the faster it could go because of some unknown resistance. It appears gravity out does the speed of light why not other things?

Given that we have experimented with many particles moving exceedingly close to the speed of light, it is highly highly unlikely that we are misunderstanding this effect.

 

[bill alsept]

Why can't this work?

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/11/a_black_hole_without_a_singula.php

 

[Chalnoth]

Why can't this work?

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/11/a_black_hole_without_a_singula.php

I strongly suspect that the pressure wouldn't allow it to keep from collapsing further, as before.

 

[PRDan4th]

I tend to agree with Bill, the idea of a singularity just does not make sense. Why cannot a neutron star be massive enough or small enough to create a black hole. The smallest particle must be incompressible beyond some level of pressure.

 

[Chalnoth]

I tend to agree with Bill, the idea of a singularity just does not make sense. Why cannot a neutron star be massive enough or small enough to create a black hole. The smallest particle must be incompressible beyond some level of pressure.

Why?

 

[PRDan4th]

A neutron star can grow by accumulating more stars and become more massive enough to increase the gravity at the event horizon, thus becoming a black hole. This does not require it to become infinitely small. This, of course, is just my opinion. I cannot accept the idea of a singularity, regardless of what Einstein said.

 

[Chalnoth]

A neutron star can grow by accumulating more stars and become more massive enough to increase the gravity at the event horizon, thus becoming a black hole. This does not require it to become infinitely small. This, of course, is just my opinion. I cannot accept the idea of a singularity, regardless of what Einstein said.

Well, no, we can be quite certain there is no such thing as a singularity. However, the answer cannot be related to pressure, because once you go beyond a certain density, greater pressure simply causes a greater gravitational field, so that collapse becomes inevitable.

The only way this can be resolved is through a quantum theory of gravity.

 

[sigurdW]

Matter is energy... and energy does not, to my knowledge, have the space restrictions matter has.
So when gravity is strong enough then matter turns into energy and can occupy an infinitely small volume. (Where only quantum theory sets a limit.)

 

[PRDan4th]

When matter turns into energy it gives off a great deal of heat! Think A-bomb. If a neutron star collapsed to a point by convert into energy the heat released would blow it apart. So I do not think this works.

 

[sigurdW]

When matter turns into energy it gives off a great deal of heat! Think A-bomb. If a neutron star collapsed to a point by convert into energy the heat released would blow it apart. So I do not think this works.

I was thinking of a black hole...i don't think neutron stars can collapse.

 

[Naty1]

"So when gravity is strong enough then matter turns into energy .."

That is speculation. Things start out that way and stars are born from clouds of gas, but then the nuclear processes run their course permitting further compression and greater density.

As stellar masses get more dense due to gravitational energy, things progress in density to electron degeneracy, then neutron, then quark, then apparently collapse to a black hole...by that time no one knows what happens to 'mass'...we believe the singularity is one of time, not space.

Regarding neutron stars:

Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses. [before collapse to a black hole] [3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well known.

In a neutron star less massive than the limit, the weight of the star is balanced by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions mediated by the strong force and also by the quantum degeneracy pressure of neutrons, preventing collapse. If its mass is above the limit, the star will collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star). Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole.

Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff_limit

 

[Chalnoth]

"So when gravity is strong enough then matter turns into energy .."

That is speculation.

It's a bit worse than that. I didn't feel like pointing this out before, but I might as well now.

The statement that matter turns into energy doesn't even make sense. Energy is a property of matter. It doesn't have its own existence separate from matter (provided you have a broad definition of matter to include things like photons). Matter can turn into different forms. But it doesn't make any sense at all to say it turns into energy. Matter has energy, it doesn't turn into it.

 

[zhermes]

The statement that matter turns into energy doesn't even make sense. Energy is a property of matter. It doesn't have its own existence separate from matter (provided you have a broad definition of matter to include things like photons). Matter can turn into different forms. But it doesn't make any sense at all to say it turns into energy. Matter has energy, it doesn't turn into it.

Thats not correct use of the language. Matter specifically refers to things with rest-mass. Matter is a sub-type of energy---it must have rest-mass energy, and can possesses additional energy (i.e. kinetic, internal, etc). Photons are not matter, space(time) is not matter---both can have energy.
The statement that 'matter turns into energy' is not rigorously correct as matter is already energy. But colloquially, the 'energy' being referred to is energy in a more 'pure' form---e.g. radiation, or kinetic energy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thats not correct use of the language. Matter specifically refers to things with rest-mass.

When the gluons in a proton/neutron make up most of their masses, this definition ceases to make sense. But whatever, that isn't important to my point. The next part is.

Matter is a sub-type of energy

No. This is completely wrong. Even if you don't call the gauge bosons matter, the fact is that they are not energy. They are particles that have energy. There is nothing more or less pure about a photon versus an electron.

 

[bill alsept]

Matter can turn into different forms. But it doesn't make any sense at all to say it turns into energy. Matter has energy, it doesn't turn into it.

Is energy just one form of motion or another as in momentum or angular momentum? I am confused as to what photons are . When mass gives off photons is it loosing anything or is it just radiating the extra energy that is being bottle necked into it? Is it like galaxies when too much matter is forced into the center at one time a quasar can form to relieve the excess? If E=Mc2 what are photons and what part do they play in GR? Is there an answer to the equation E/c2=?. Or can you do that?

 

[zhermes]

No. This is completely wrong. Even if you don't call the gauge bosons matter, the fact is that they are not energy. They are particles that have energy. There is nothing more or less pure about a photon versus an electron.

Matter has mass. Mass is a form of energy. Photons don't have mass, besides fractions the other gauge bosons do. The rest is a philosophical question of what is the intrinsic property of particles... I'm not sure that I disagree with you.

 

[Chalnoth]

Is energy just one form of motion or another as in momentum or angular momentum?

I'm not entirely sure of a colloquial way of explaining energy. Energy is a conserved quantity that arises because local laws of physics are invariant in time. Momentum, similarly, is a conserved quantity that arises because local laws of physics are invariant in with respect to location in space. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity that arises because the local laws of physics are invariant with respect to rotation.

All of these are properties of the fermions and bosons that inhabit space, whether you're talking about protons, electrons, photons, or whatever. They also contain other conserved quantities that are due to quantum-mechanical degrees of freedom, such as electric charge, weak hypercharge, and color (for the strong force interaction: not literal color, this is just what we call the strong charges).

I am confused as to what photons are . When mass gives off photons is it loosing anything or is it just radiating the extra energy that is being bottle necked into it?

A photon is a spin-1 particle with no rest mass that couples to electromagnetic charges. Because photons have no other quantum numbers, the only things that need to be conserved when a photon is emitted are momentum, angular momentum, and energy. Everything else is conserved automatically.

Is it like galaxies when too much matter is forced into the center at one time a quasar can form to relieve the excess? If E=Mc2 what are photons and what part do they play in GR? Is there an answer to the equation E/c2=?. Or can you do that?

This doesn't make any sense to me. A quasar doesn't form to relieve any sort of excess. A quasar forms because you have a lot of matter falling into the central black hole. When that matter is used up or blown away, the quasar turns off.

 

[Chalnoth]

Matter has mass. Mass is a form of energy.

Ergo matter has energy, but is not a form of it.