What Happens to Matter in a Black Hole?

[agentredlum]

As far as I know, nothing is falling faster than the speed of light outside of or inside of the event horizon.

When i am inside the event horizon can i see other objects inside the event horizon?

Inside the event horizon can i perform an experiment to determine the speed of light?

Is the speed of light constant inside the event horizon?

If the black hole that i am falling into (inside the event horizon) is considered an 'observer' because it interacts with 'stuff' falling into it then shouldn't it measure the same speed of light that i do?

 

[agentredlum]

No. Yes.

Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

When i am inside the event horizon can i see other objects inside the event horizon?

Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.

There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this.

Inside the event horizon can i perform an experiment to determine the speed of light?

Yes, but you'd better hurry. As you fall, you will quickly begin experiencing spaghettification (yes, that's a real term) which will definitely put a crimp in your attempts to do experiments. (spaghettification is unrelated to EH).

It is important to recognize that the EH is not a real boundary of any sort, it is only an abstract mathematical one (though it has real consequences). An infalling observer experiences nothing untoward at the boundary.

As a very loose analogy, there is a boundary around Jupiter below which orbiting rubble will not coalesce into a Moon. There is nothing special at all occurring at this distance, it is a calculated distance we have determined - there's nothing "there". Simply, farther than that distance, particulates behave one way, closer, particulates behave a different way. Can you see how there's nothing special experienced when crossing this so-called "boundary"?

Is the speed of light constant inside the event horizon?

If the black hole that i am falling into (inside the event horizon) is considered an 'observer' because it interacts with 'stuff' falling into it then shouldn't it measure the same speed of light that i do?

An observer at any point outside the singularity itself will observe the speed of light to be c. (However the frequency of that light might highly distorted.)

 

[agentredlum]

Dave wrote,

"Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this."

Thank you for replies to my questions but now i have another one.

Yes, I know there is a region just outside the event horizon where you can look forward and see the BACK OF YOUR OWN HEAD! Thats wild.

Inside the event horizon i would tend to think it gets harder to see anything at all as you get closer to the singularity. Locality for you is shrinking due to steady increase of gravitation.

What i mean is, when you get closer to the singularity you may not be able to see objects that you could see when you were further away from the singularity.

If we consider events within your light cone as local. Does the immense gravitational force 'squeeze' your light cone and diminish your range of 'locality'?

Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave wrote,

"Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this."

Thank you for replies to my questions but now i have another one.

Yes, I know there is a region just outside the event horizon where you can look forward and see the BACK OF YOUR OWN HEAD! Thats wild.

Inside the event horizon i would tend to think it gets harder to see anything at all as you get closer to the singularity. Locality for you is shrinking due to steady increase of gravitation.

What i mean is, when you get closer to the singularity you may not be able to see objects that you could see when you were further away from the singularity.

If we consider events within your light cone as local. Does the immense gravitational force 'squeeze' your light cone and diminish your range of 'locality'?

Thanks.

Absolutely, yes.

 

[agentredlum]

Absolutely, yes.

Thank you. My own feeling on the subject is that it gets harder to 'pretend' that one is in an inertial frame of reference as you get closer to the singularity because the tremendous tidal forces (spaghettification) put the observer into an accelerated frame of reference and Minkowsk-Einstein space-time light cone does not hold same for all observers at varying distance from the singularity.

Relativity explains non-accelerating observers, once the observer is accelerating all bets are off.(My opinion)

 

[agentredlum]

It is very difficult to point to a non- accelerating observer.

Hold on now, I am not 'attacking' Relativity.

Rotation is an acceleration. The Earth rotates around itself and the Sun. The Sun rotates around itself and the center of the Milky Way taking the Earth with it. The Milky way is part of the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies hurtling through space and i bet this supercluster is rotating too, taking the Earth, Sun and whole kit-and-kaboodle with it,but IDK if anyone has been able to calculate this rotation.

Given all this we still pretend that there exist inertial frames of reference.

 

[Zentrails]

Yes. Though geometry will appear highly distorted. eg. at some point, you will begin to see multiple copies of yourself.

There are some animations out there on the web that attempt to show this.



Yes, but you'd better hurry. As you fall, you will quickly begin experiencing spaghettification (yes, that's a real term) which will definitely put a crimp in your attempts to do experiments. (spaghettification is unrelated to EH).

It is important to recognize that the EH is not a real boundary of any sort, it is only an abstract mathematical one (though it has real consequences). An infalling observer experiences nothing untoward at the boundary.

As a very loose analogy, there is a boundary around Jupiter below which orbiting rubble will not coalesce into a Moon. There is nothing special at all occurring at this distance, it is a calculated distance we have determined - there's nothing "there". Simply, farther than that distance, particulates behave one way, closer, particulates behave a different way. Can you see how there's nothing special experienced when crossing this so-called "boundary"?



An observer at any point outside the singularity itself will observe the speed of light to be c. (However the frequency of that light might highly distorted.)

If you are inside the photon sphere you will only "see" orbiting photons. Any photons given off by you or any other object will simply orbit the black hole.

Speculating about what you might "see" even closer to a black hole is a fool's errand, IMO.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.

 

[jtbell]

The thread is now open again. Please stick to physics, and refrain from philosophical/religious speculations, conspiracy theories, personal attacks, and snide remarks.

 

[NewWave]

http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born-black-hole-theory.html

 

[only1universe]

I think there is 1 possibility of this happenning.

Black holes eat up all matter, all matter quits existing inside the singularity.

No matter = no distance so all black holes(And all energy) are in the same place relatively.

I'm not sure black holes completely destroy matter in this sense, but the idea that the removal of matter causes everything to suddenly exist in a singularity is the fundamental concept in how i believe our universe continually recreates itself.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think there is 1 possibility of this happenning.

Black holes eat up all matter, all matter quits existing inside the singularity.

A gravitational singularity is predicted but current, incomplete theories. It is not widely accepted that singularities do actually exist but that a more comprehensive understanding is required to accurately model what goes on in these situations.

No matter = no distance so all black holes(And all energy) are in the same place relatively.

Eh? I have two black holes 100ly apart. How are they in the same place?

I'm not sure black holes completely destroy matter in this sense, but the idea that the removal of matter causes everything to suddenly exist in a singularity is the fundamental concept in how i believe our universe continually recreates itself.

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a science forum, here we discuss evidence. Any personal beliefs must be supported by data.

 

[only1universe]

Eh? I have two black holes 100ly apart. How are they in the same place?

They are in the same place because when matter quit existing, distance became an irrelevant factor since there is nothing anchoring space. Is it your assertion that the universe behaves in a similar fashion in he absence of matter?

What you believe is irrelevant. This is a science forum, here we discuss evidence. Any personal beliefs must be supported by data.

Certainly, but I didn't think it was an errant personal belief that the universe behaves drastically different in the absence of matter. I do not know if black holes survive the big rip that expansions seems to lead to, but I do know there is plenty of evidence to warrant that instant interactions can happen across any distance in the absence of matter. So if black holes survive the rip of expansion by behaving in a way matter does not, it provides a possibility that black holes give birth to the universe.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought, since logically I believe a black hole's mass anchors space just like matter would. But it is not an area physics is certain of just yet. For inflation to be cyclical as many modern models point to, it needs to rip apart these anchors in space to behave in a non-conventional way. If its required black holes must be ripped apart along with matter to remove certain parameters of physics, then it must be so. But since the jury is still out on black hole behavior and implication, I think it is dishonest to say with any amount of certainty that black holes have nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

They are in the same place because when matter quit existing, distance became an irrelevant factor since there is nothing anchoring space. Is it your assertion that the universe behaves in a similar fashion in he absence of matter?

Mass "warps" space. Who says that matter stops existing beyond an event horizon? Whilst we don't know for certain what goes on beyond an EH quite evidently there is a large gravitational effect. I have no idea what you mean by "anchoring space" not that distance is irrelevant. Quite obviously if two black holes are 100ly apart there is distance between them. Please provide citations from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.

Certainly, but I didn't think it was an errant personal belief that the universe behaves drastically different in the absence of matter. I do not know if black holes survive the big rip that expansions seems to lead to, but I do know there is plenty of evidence to warrant that instant interactions can happen across any distance in the absence of matter. So if black holes survive the rip of expansion by behaving in a way matter does not, it provides a possibility that black holes give birth to the universe.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought, since logically I believe a black hole's mass anchors space just like matter would. But it is not an area physics is certain of just yet. For inflation to be cyclical as many modern models point to, it needs to rip apart these anchors in space to behave in a non-conventional way. If its required black holes must be ripped apart along with matter to remove certain parameters of physics, then it must be so. But since the jury is still out on black hole behavior and implication, I think it is dishonest to say with any amount of certainty that black holes have nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

There is no firm evidence for a "big rip". Again what do you mean by anchor? Also it is not scientific to say "there is no evidence against this", the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Please provide evidence from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

The funny thig here is Black Holes (beyond the EH) are causally distinct to our Universe - while there is matter/mass interaction caused by curvature of space, there is no information exchange. Therefore BH's by definition are not part of our observable Universe. - Well to be fair this is a contested issue with regards to information exchange BH paradox so I won't go into it too much.

Only1universe: With regards to all BH's occupying the same "non-space" - this notion does not make much sense, like saying that my plug in my bath is in the same place as a fish in the Atlantic - they may be in the same medium but they are NOT the same spacetime - or "non spacetime" as the case may be. I cannot really discuss this in any serious way without any peer reviewed articles or definitive postulates. Interesting non serious topic though!

 

[only1universe]

Mass "warps" space. Who says that matter stops existing beyond an event horizon? Whilst we don't know for certain what goes on beyond an EH quite evidently there is a large gravitational effect. I have no idea what you mean by "anchoring space" not that distance is irrelevant. Quite obviously if two black holes are 100ly apart there is distance between them. Please provide citations from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.

I don't claim to know what's going on beyond the EH either, which is why I say its possible that space does not need to act the same way necessarily in the presence of a black hole as it does in the presence of matter(thought it may.) I'm not saying either way is correct, only that the possibilities are not ruled out.

There is no firm evidence for a "big rip". Again what do you mean by anchor? Also it is not scientific to say "there is no evidence against this", the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Please provide evidence from peer-reviewed literature to explain and support your statements.

Don't (nearly)all inflation models point to a big rip at some point in the far future? By "anchor" I'm referring to whatever design causes matter to behave in a way that is different than QM. Obviously QM has the ability to ignore distance as a requirement for interaction. Whether this means this distance is meaningless to such QM particles, or that they are not fixed to space at all is not something I am clear on. But its irrelevant, what is relevant is that the absence of matter allows the absence of GR since all remaining particles would be operating in a QM universe with no atomic observers.

If I could find peer reviewed material explaining the behavior of a QM universe with no matter acting as an observer for stability there wouldn't be need stipulate. But conceptually that doesn't make the assertion completely errant. If black holes some how survive into the QM universe, the rules of their interactions ought to change greatly. I'm not saying that they necessarily would, but in a QM universe without matter, time isn't even a certainty, and without time how can there possibly be distance?

Am I incorrect in thinking there is no clock without matter?

 

[only1universe]

Only1universe: With regards to all BH's occupying the same "non-space" - this notion does not make much sense, like saying that my plug in my bath is in the same place as a fish in the Atlantic - they may be in the same medium but they are NOT the same spacetime - or "non spacetime" as the case may be. I cannot really discuss this in any serious way without any peer reviewed articles or definitive postulates. Interesting non serious topic though!

I agree, I'm badly framing my statements. In a universe where there is no matter, there is only QM. QM universe without observers is a very strange place that I do not understand fully. Why I do understand of it though seems to indicate that information interactions happen without regard to time or distance. There is at least some consensus that without matter, you do not have a clock. And with no way to measure time, I don't understand how distance could possibly not be a casualty as well- as it is a function of time.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't claim to know what's going on beyond the EH either, which is why I say its possible that space does not need to act the same way necessarily in the presence of a black hole as it does in the presence of matter(thought it may.) I'm not saying either way is correct, only that the possibilities are not ruled out.

This is not how science is done. We do not speculate on unknown possibilities, we stick to what we do know. Speculation must fit the evidence to be useful.

Don't (nearly)all inflation models point to a big rip at some point in the far future?

Not that I am aware no. If you can provide a lost of models that you are referring to that would help.

By "anchor" I'm referring to whatever design causes matter to behave in a way that is different than QM. Obviously QM has the ability to ignore distance as a requirement for interaction. Whether this means this distance is meaningless to such QM particles, or that they are not fixed to space at all is not something I am clear on. But its irrelevant, what is relevant is that the absence of matter allows the absence of GR since all remaining particles would be operating in a QM universe with no atomic observers.

If I could find peer reviewed material explaining the behavior of a QM universe with no matter acting as an observer for stability there wouldn't be need stipulate. But conceptually that doesn't make the assertion completely errant. If black holes some how survive into the QM universe, the rules of their interactions ought to change greatly. I'm not saying that they necessarily would, but in a QM universe without matter, time isn't even a certainty, and without time how can there possibly be distance?

Am I incorrect in thinking there is no clock without matter?

I'm pretty sure the difference is statistical. I.e. yes my desk may disappear and reappear on the far side of the room but it is statistically hugely unlikely. I'm not an expert on this so if you want to learn more I suggest posting in the quantum physics forum.

However speculating that mass is what "anchors" objects is (as far as I am aware) way out of line with current understanding. Again, rather than speculating you should provide links to what data you are using to make your claims. If you don't know do not speculate but instead go and learn.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I'm pretty sure the difference is statistical. I.e. yes my desk may disappear and reappear on the far side of the room but it is statistically hugely unlikely. I'm not an expert on this so if you want to learn more I suggest posting in the quantum physics forum.

Yes that's correct - Quantum Fluctuations are supposed to be very statistically improbable, so virtual particle creation can occur but the more complex the virtual particle - or composition, then the more unlikely the virtual creation from fluctuation. The theory being that an infinite amount of time - eventual heat death of the Universe would eventually lead to a quantum fluctuation fluctuating a new Universe.

This is at least my current understanding. With regards to a "big rip" hypotheses, as far as I understand, these rely on the decay of protons being a correct function of the standard model which is unproven.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I agree, I'm badly framing my statements. In a universe where there is no matter, there is only QM. QM universe without observers is a very strange place that I do not understand fully. Why I do understand of it though seems to indicate that information interactions happen without regard to time or distance. There is at least some consensus that without matter, you do not have a clock. And with no way to measure time, I don't understand how distance could possibly not be a casualty as well- as it is a function of time.

The question is irrelevant as the observer needs to be there to observe! I do not mean to seem rude but this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Like asking "what can I observe if I observe the unobservable" I hope you see my point.

With regards to your earlier comment on mass being "anchored" to spacetime. This is an interesting comment but - if you take account inflation and disregard minor (on a galactic scale) kinemtic motion, then every galaxy/cluster/supercluster (large gravity bound system) is essentially in roughly the place it was in during early expansion - at the time it would have just been a matter dense pertubation in spacetime. So there is in essence no movement of spacetime on the underlying mass - so there is no need for an "anchoring" mechanism, the mechanism is made obsolete by the fact of little kinematic motion through spacetime for gravity bound systems, and apparent expansion caused by expansion of scale factor (balloon analogy)

Hope this makes sense and anyone with advice/corrections are welcome.

 

[only1universe]

This is not how science is done. We do not speculate on unknown possibilities, we stick to what we do know. Speculation must fit the evidence to be useful.

I agree that speculation must fit the evidence to be useful, the only reason I speculate at all is because the OP is told flatly that black holes have nothing to do with universe formation. That is not supported by what we know. That is speculation. Therefore all that is required is a counter speculation since what was originally deemed incorrect was not done based on the evidence because as you say, the evidence is incomplete.

Not that I am aware no. If you can provide a lost of models that you are referring to that would help.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..91g1301C
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506

I'm pretty sure the difference is statistical. I.e. yes my desk may disappear and reappear on the far side of the room but it is statistically hugely unlikely. I'm not an expert on this so if you want to learn more I suggest posting in the quantum physics forum.

doesn't a positron show that information can instantaneously move across distance and thus isn't being governed by GR?

However speculating that mass is what "anchors" objects is (as far as I am aware) way out of line with current understanding. Again, rather than speculating you should provide links to what data you are using to make your claims. If you don't know do not speculate but instead go and learn.

Doesn't the Copenhagen interpretation show that mass is required to make QM behave in any "rational" way. This is the "anchor" M'm referring to. In a universe where there is only QM, and no matter exists it is more speculative to say that distance is still meaningful than to assume it isn't.

 

[only1universe]

The question is irrelevant as the observer needs to be there to observe! I do not mean to seem rude but this is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Like asking "what can I observe if I observe the unobservable" I hope you see my point.

Point taken. Is there any assumptions that can be made about a universe with no observers?

With regards to your earlier comment on mass being "anchored" to spacetime. This is an interesting comment but - if you take account inflation and disregard minor (on a galactic scale) kinemtic motion, then every galaxy/cluster/supercluster (large gravity bound system) is essentially in roughly the place it was in during early expansion - at the time it would have just been a matter dense pertubation in spacetime. So there is in essence no movement of spacetime on the underlying mass - so there is no need for an "anchoring" mechanism, the mechanism is made obsolete by the fact of little kinematic motion through spacetime for gravity bound systems, and apparent expansion caused by expansion of scale factor (balloon analogy)

Hope this makes sense and anyone with advice/corrections are welcome.

This does make sense, but wouldn't there still need to be something holding mass to its position in space so that it doesn't just "flow" past it? Whats keeping the mass at that position in space as it expands, regardless of the counter intuition, some mechanism must be maintaining masses position in space no? Its my understanding that the higgs-boson as a theoretical particle is only theorized because something must be "gluing" mass to space-time to cause gravity- which clearly effects both space and time.

Thanks for input :)

 

[only1universe]

Yes that's correct - Quantum Fluctuations are supposed to be very statistically improbable, so virtual particle creation can occur but the more complex the virtual particle - or composition, then the more unlikely the virtual creation from fluctuation. The theory being that an infinite amount of time - eventual heat death of the Universe would eventually lead to a quantum fluctuation fluctuating a new Universe.

This is at least my current understanding. With regards to a "big rip" hypotheses, as far as I understand, these rely on the decay of protons being a correct function of the standard model which is unproven.

This is very close to my picture of things. Whether heat death leads to a QM universe or a big rip does so, The fact that the universe is here shows that it has a way of creating itself.

The only way the universe can become what is observed today is that somehow after all this expansion, time and distance have to become a non-factor. The existence of the universe demands this conclusion if viewed in any cyclical way.

Whether lack of matter or heat death creates the ability for the remaining particles to interact dis-regarding distance; to me the answer to everything has always relied on an final stage of the cycle that allows the universe to become what we had at the birth of our current universe.

 

[Drakkith]

This does make sense, but wouldn't there still need to be something holding mass to its position in space so that it doesn't just "flow" past it? Whats keeping the mass at that position in space as it expands, regardless of the counter intuition, some mechanism must be maintaining masses position in space no? Its my understanding that the higgs-boson as a theoretical particle is only theorized because something must be "gluing" mass to space-time to cause gravity- which clearly effects both space and time.

Thanks for input :)

To my knowledge matter and energy is not anchored in spacetime. It is always moving through it. The expansion doesn't provide a force or anything like that to physically move the matter, it is that space is constantly being created in between any point in space and another.

This is very close to my picture of things. Whether heat death leads to a QM universe or a big rip does so, The fact that the universe is here shows that it has a way of creating itself.

The only way the universe can become what is observed today is that somehow after all this expansion, time and distance have to become a non-factor. The existence of the universe demands this conclusion if viewed in any cyclical way.

Whether lack of matter or heat death creates the ability for the remaining particles to interact dis-regarding distance; to me the answer to everything has always relied on an final stage of the cycle that allows the universe to become what we had at the birth of our current universe.

I don't know what you mean by saying that time and distance have become a non-factor. Also, the view that particles can interact instantly over a large distance is, again to my knowledge, just an interpretation. Nothing about the experiments show conclusively that this occurs.

I agree, I'm badly framing my statements. In a universe where there is no matter, there is only QM. QM universe without observers is a very strange place that I do not understand fully. Why I do understand of it though seems to indicate that information interactions happen without regard to time or distance. There is at least some consensus that without matter, you do not have a clock. And with no way to measure time, I don't understand how distance could possibly not be a casualty as well- as it is a function of time.

This seems like nonsense to me. It makes no sense to talk about a universe with no observers. A universe with no matter, mass, or energy probably doesn't even count as being a universe. Also, I don't see why matter would be needed in order for time to exist. There is a difference between us measuring the passage of time and the actual existence of time. It sounds like you are saying that without matter spacetime does not exist.

 

[only1universe]

To my knowledge matter and energy is not anchored in spacetime. It is always moving through it. The expansion doesn't provide a force or anything like that to physically move the matter, it is that space is constantly being created in between any point in space and another.

Doesn't this fundamentally change a coordinate of matter? And if not then how did matter manage to stay in the same place? I view this as a propellant- even if it is only conceptual, Matter did in-fact move.

I don't know what you mean by saying that time and distance have become a non-factor. Also, the view that particles can interact instantly over a large distance is, again to my knowledge, just an interpretation. Nothing about the experiments show conclusively that this occurs.

A positron doesn't demonstrate this ability?

This seems like nonsense to me. It makes no sense to talk about a universe with no observers. A universe with no matter, mass, or energy probably doesn't even count as being a universe. Also, I don't see why matter would be needed in order for time to exist. There is a difference between us measuring the passage of time and the actual existence of time. It sounds like you are saying that without matter spacetime does not exist.

Would a vacuum not be a universe? Is vacuum behavior in the absence of matter mass and energy even a rational idea?

 

[Drakkith]

Doesn't this fundamentally change a coordinate of matter? And if not then how did matter manage to stay in the same place? I view this as a propellant- even if it is only conceptual, Matter did in-fact move.

Coordinates in relation to what? There is no absolute reference frame. The distance between two objects in space increased, but this did not cause either object to move within local space. For example, if two protons moved exactly opposite of each other at 50% c about 10 billion years ago, the rate of increase in distance the two move apart has generally been increasing over time. However neither one is moving through "local" space at any different velocity than they were initially. How do we know this? Because the acceleration increases as distance increases, not time. If it were solely a force that accelerated particles then it wouldn't matter what the distance between 2 objects were, only how long ago they were emitted.

How did matter stay in the same place? Because space itself was either expanding or new space was created. Either way it's the same effect.

A positron doesn't demonstrate this ability?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. This looks exactly the same as saying "An electron doesn't demonstrate this ability?" What context are we talking about? What happened?

Would a vacuum not be a universe? Is vacuum behavior in the absence of matter mass and energy even a rational idea?

Not to me. Everything I have seen points to a minimum amount of energy that the universe possesses in its ground state. The removal of this...well, just doesn't really make any sense to me. I am far from an expert on this, so I won't gurantee that I am correct on all this. If something is incorrect, someone please correct me.

 

[tvscientist]

RE: Black Holes

I do not believe BH are anything but extreme examples of established physics. People seem to get all spooky since light does not escape these things. That is simply a matter of extreme gravity. Photons either go into orbit within or near the even horizon, or simply come to a near stop within the extreme gravity.

IMHO a BH is nothing but a place where space, time, matter, and energy simple come to an effective stop.

 

[Drakkith]

RE: Black Holes

I do not believe BH are anything but extreme examples of established physics. People seem to get all spooky since light does not escape these things. That is simply a matter of extreme gravity. Photons either go into orbit within or near the even horizon, or simply come to a near stop within the extreme gravity.

IMHO a BH is nothing but a place where space, time, matter, and energy simple come to an effective stop.

Photons never stop, they always travel at c in every reference frame. The explanation I know best for light not escaping a black hole is that all paths the photon can travel are bent back into the black hole. Imagine a skate boarder on a half pipe. With a black hole the half pipe curves back into itself, so no matter how fast the skateboarder goes, they can never get up and out of the half pipe. Nor does time or matter stop. An infalling observer, assuming they survived the entry past the event horizon, would always be experiencing time at the normal rate for themselves.

 

[tvscientist]

I don't see why Black Holes are anything special. I don't see how our 'math breaks down'. Even Hawking acknowledges Susskind was correct in his assessment that Black Holes do not evaporate by Quantum Mechanics.

As matter accretes towards a BH it simply spins itself into a spiral onion layer. From our perspective the onion layer approaches zero thickness, then disappears below an expanding event horizon. The event horizon is determined by 1) the accreting mass plus 2) matter that was trapped by the original stellar collapse.

The original mass does not form a singularity since almost all the subsequent gravity is generated by mass that accumulates near the event horizon. Any mass not exactly in the gravitational center of mass will accrete outwards. Since the accretion disk is non symetrical, the BH almost certainly is hollow.

 

[Drakkith]

Where did you get your infomation on black holes from? I've never heard of most of that before.

 

[chadthree6ty]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I mean, if you just think about how everything else works, it just makes sense.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?
Its my belief that we in fact live in a multiverse and on the flipside of a black hole, when it accumulates enough matter to go critical, BANG!
Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.
Of course this is just a theory and opinion, and you know what they say about those. ;)

 

[Drakkith]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I mean, if you just think about how everything else works, it just makes sense.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?

If you were told matter could not be created or destroyed then someone gave you false information. Mass and energy are a different story, neither can be created or destroyed.

Its my belief that we in fact live in a multiverse and on the flipside of a black hole, when it accumulates enough matter to go critical, BANG!

There is no evidence of this and as far as I know very little reason to think any of this is possible.

Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We create matter in particle colliders all the time. There is no reason to recycle them as they can be converted to energy and radiated out as hawking radiation.

Of course this is just a theory and opinion, and you know what they say about those. ;)

Actually scientific theories are NOT what most people think they are. I suggest you look up what a scientific theory really is. Suggesting that something is "just a theory" means that whoever says that has no idea what science is about.

 

[DaveC426913]

As matter accretes towards a BH it simply spins itself into a spiral onion layer. From our perspective the onion layer approaches zero thickness, then disappears below an expanding event horizon. The event horizon is determined by 1) the accreting mass plus 2) matter that was trapped by the original stellar collapse.

The original mass does not form a singularity since almost all the subsequent gravity is generated by mass that accumulates near the event horizon. Any mass not exactly in the gravitational center of mass will accrete outwards. Since the accretion disk is non symetrical, the BH almost certainly is hollow.

This is all completely wrong. You should read up on the structure of black holes.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have actually written a paper on this.
I remember being told "matter can neither be created or destroyed", and in the same class being told that after black holes spend eons sucking up matter, and then they "evaporate"?

For the record, evaporation does not mean the mass disappears. It means the mass leaves the black hole and returns to the universe, though not at all in the same form.

Along with this theory, I think the extreme pressures and temp would be enough do "dislodge" so to speak, some electrons, protons, etc...and in a sense, recycle matter the way our tectonic plates do.

Really? How will these electrons and protons acquire so much kinetic energy that they can climb up a curve so steep that even massless light itself cannot climb?