Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into a Black Hole

posted on 28-5-2015 at 13:40

This is also a stumbling block on the road to complete understanding, as we imagine we have Power over it, having done something amazing, like make Fire, and cease to quest for more knowledge.

Most scientists are far more humble than you might believe.

'2 + 2 = 3'

The Man Who Knew too Much.

Acids and Bases: Brønsted–Lowry Theory (an interactive educational SM thread)

Quantum Mechanics/Wave Mechanics in Chemistry SM Thread

Solvation, solubility limits and solubility products: basic theory with worked examples (SM thread)

Calculus for beginners (SM thread): table of content

'Tie yourself to the mast my friend and the storm will end'

'This time next year Rodney, we'll be millionaires!'

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

posted on 28-5-2015 at 13:50

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Oh. You mean the Stuff We Cannot see.

A lot of stuff. Most of the stuff.

Maybe the Stuff simply is doing it's thing, yet not at the TIME we try to observe it.

Just not exactly Now (as our Ape Brains perceive it).

We know it is there, Maths proves it, and Maths is the most effective probe ever invented.

It, along with all matter (including that which makes us) isn't bound to to the Time axis, which our Ape brains are.

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

Simple test of Time-fixation.

How would you measure displacement in say Height relative to a table ?

A graph of Height versus Time ?
A graph of Height versus electrical charge ?

Temperature ?
An instantaneous measurement ?

Try to think of any measurement you could do that does not involve Time.

Edit

I would venture that forever we have always been guilty of simple 4 Dimensional thinking (XYZ & Time) and that most likely has some limitations.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-5-2015 at 13:54

posted on 28-5-2015 at 13:57

How would you measure displacement in say Height relative to a table ?

Define this a little better? The measurement problem, I mean?

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

Simple : Measure something over a period that is not Time.

You may not refer to Time in any way.

The measurements must relate to one or more of the other dimensional properties of the thing you measure.

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-5-2015 at 14:00

Hard one, I think.

Not referring to it would be easy but also cheating in most cases.

Another sleepless night. Why did I have to meet you on the fleeceBay?

Manifest Destiny!

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

posted on 28-5-2015 at 14:04

A simple case would be to measure the distance from the base of a right-angled triangle to the hypotenuse.

The difficulty there would be WHEN you did those measurements (time again).

To travel in a linear fashion from the right-angled corner, taking measurements all the way without passing any time at all would be unthinkable.

Not impossible, just unthinkable.

Zombie

Forum Hillbilly

Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline

Mood: I just don't know...

posted on 28-5-2015 at 15:57

Except... the central gravitational field of a BH is caused by... matter!

[/rquote]

While I can not argue that is or is not so, it does not sound correct. It takes forces beyond what we can comprehend to create such an event. SOMETHING had to start this mechanism. I'm not much of a believer in "it just is".

I'm not talking about the 'creation event'. Only that the intense gravity of a BH is caused by enormous amounts of mass contained in it. See the BH at the centre of our own Galaxy and the star system that orbits around it, obeying Kepler's Law perfectly.

See also Chandrasekhar limit:

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

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

I'll check out that link. It might help me get this.

Now let me ask this. you say it is immense gravity. I get gravity. what I don't get is what is the idea that is IS gravity based on?

Couldn't you also just as easily say it is a hole in the galaxy, and everything is simply rushing out? Like stars going down the loo? The other factor I do not get is the fact that X-rays are emitting from our BH but nothing else.
I find it hard to swallow the the supposed most powerful force in our galaxy has a flaw. if even light can not escape then there should be no threshold where other forms of energy can. Now IF you assumed it was nothing more than a compactor... The energy created would have to be emitted.

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

"I don't understand how time could be a variable in a BH model"

Consider the inverse Gamma equation, which implies time slows down proportionately due to a gravitational field. We know this is fact from very advanced and precise experiments comparing earthbound and orbiting clocks. The stronger the gravity the slower the rate of time. Or from Einsteins perspective the greater the curvature (warping) of the fabric of space-time the slower the rate of time. Since gravity is understood to be a property of the BH model and since the gradient increases the closer one gets one can conclude the rate of time varies with the mass of the BH and the radius of the observer.

Ok. This makes sense. It may take more thinking for me to see how this really is a variable tho.
I truly see no correlation between time, and energy. (other than what you posted)
In the center of a BH time may be slower than it is a trillion miles away but the real time events still transpire none the less.
Is it in the fact that say an arrow shot thru water requires more energy to travel the same distance as an arrow shot thru air?

Say the gravity is there, and strong enough to entrap light...
How does time in any sense change that fact?

The only thing I don't understand here is how time would effect anything in the maths.

My model is at odds with the entirely of known science, so best to not pay it any attention.

Oh, apart from recognising that Time appears in most equations that relate to anything significant.

The Rate of blah etc. Event Horizon blah.

All ideas are probable. Even that stupid hat wearing cow.
Wouldn't we all be in for a treat if that caw was eating everything in site. it could be a God cow...

I'm having a hard time (no pun) with this time thing.
As stated, time is NOT a tru constant. Maybe we like to THINK it is, and maybe it is for US but we are talking about a different scale.

Trying to apply our knows to a universal equation is like saying a fish should be able to buy gasoline because we can.

That's my issue with a lot of things. I find it beyond arrogance to assume we can quantify something beyond our level of comprehension, using our worlds constants as a "known" variable.

I mean, yes the gravity deal sounds feasible BUT where does it all go? everything HAS to be somewhere.

Here's a good question (imho)
Looking at a BH... Is it a sphere or is it a cone? How large are we talking?
Will Triple A go, and get your Fiat back?

When Building Knowledge, sometimes it is wise to dive back down to the roots and see if the original assumptions really do bear up to scrutiny, armed with the newly found knowledge.

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

The basis of my existence.

"Just because it is" means js83jndfha663u5hj, to me.
Saying something is assembled "this way" is a statement that needs verification.

Why is it Hawking that gets to modify his model yet everyone else is a quasi moron for doing so? 10 years ago he was convinced he was correct. I never was. Today he modifies his theory, and everyone says OOooooo! Now THIS make sense!

You HAVE to assume nothing, and find a way to prove out an idea. Whether it's a mathematical formula that is modified to fit the parameters or a duck w/ a GPS strapped to it's back.

If something is a new science it only makes sense that new rules should apply. No?

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by blogfast25]

"Eventually, Albert Einstein (1905) drew the conclusion that established theories and facts known at that time only form a logical coherent system when the concepts of space and time are subjected to a fundamental revision."

[Edited on 28-5-2015 by aga]

Convenient. I think I just said that.

My flame may not be the brightest, but I guarantee I make more sparks than most.

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

I do believe they are integral to this subject. Opposites will always co-exist. It just seems like they Have to.

Next stop: Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We know it is there, Maths proves it, and Maths is the most effective probe ever invented.

It, along with all matter (including that which makes us) isn't bound to to the Time axis, which our Ape brains are.

This is my stumbling block. Time is used in many formulas including E=, but it is ONLY our perception of what we use as a constant.
Essentially we are apes. they can no more make a proper motorcycle than we can make a proper model of a black hole.

I say start over. I'll figure out how to model compressed energy, and see where that leads... I HATE having to get smarter. It make me forget all my valued stupid sh!t.

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

posted on 28-5-2015 at 17:19

Now you're just teasing me.

There are LOTS of things in this long arse post to pick apart. I can't ever remember thinking this much.

They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-5-2015 at 17:23

Now let me ask this. you say it is immense gravity. I get gravity. what I don't get is what is the idea that is IS gravity based on?

Look up 'black hole in the Milky Way'.

At the centre of our galaxy is a massive black hole. It was discovered (and weighed!) through a set of stars orbiting around it.

Edit: supermassive BH at the centre of our Galaxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#In_the_...

Kepler's Law, very simply, then allows you to determine the mass at the centre of these orbiting stars. It's A-level physics, even though the measurements of the orbital periods of these stars was a piece of cutting edge empiricism, i.e. Astronomy.

So we KNOW black holes are MASSIVE, made up of ginormous amounts of compacted matter. We don't know what's the nature of this matter, but it ain't atoms, that's for sure!

Mass of 'our' black hole: 4.1 MILLION Sun masses (8.2 x 10<sup>36</sup> kg. A bit of a heavy weight, wouldn't you say?)

Quote:

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

You should read some decent Philosophy to understand more about the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. I'm serious about that.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC

International Hazard

Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

"Couldn't you also just as easily say it is a hole in the galaxy, and everything is simply rushing out?"

Have not carefully looked at all of your post but lets think about this one thought. Suppose your correct even if we do not know where the mass is going, just that it is gone. Other dimensions outside our space-time for the sake of simplicity. Would not the gravitational field gradient be decreasing more rapidly than what can be accounted for by mere Hawking radiation if this were so? If one considers the orbital angular momentum of all the star systems in every galaxy and one considers galaxies we can see that are billions of light years away (and billions of years ago) comparing them to much closer ones should we not find evidence that all galaxies are flying apart? At least the spiral galaxies with super-massive black holes at their centers. Granted this may take very long compared to our existence but one would think based upon statistics alone we should have found spiral galaxies out there in various states of orbital decay. What I believe we in fact see is that galaxies tend to form into collections of star systems orbiting a central mass which often appears to be growing in size as it eats gas, dust, and stars. In other words it appears that galaxies form over time, not the reverse. There is no way fairly stable spiral arms full of stars would remain in their orbits if the central attractor was growing weaker over time, it must be stable at the least. What are we, say 30,000 light years from our BH? So in only that time frame our solar system should have learned the gravity was decreasing that holds us here. Why are we not a rogue system aimlessly wandering towards the great attractor as Andromeda flies apart while also on its mission to smash us to smithereens? Hopefully you can get the problems I am having with your thought in quotes above.

As to whether or not the mass did vanish and it is merely the gravitational field gradients frozen in time I cannot say. However I prefer a natural common sense view which tells me the gravity is still there because the mass is still there. Even if we cannot see it. If stars being eaten did not collapse into the BH why is it we do not see super bright stars at the centers considering every one of them was very bright at the moment they were eaten which should result in one giant star still undergoing fusion. The energy coming at us should have turned us into tostada's long before the Sabre toothed tiger went extinct. Here I am saying discount neutronium that never happens and discount event horizons as well. Problem is there is a lot of evidence for neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, you name it with bursts of energy with Timex like timing (or should I say Rolex?). Plenty of evidence neutronium is a real happening, and since we are not crisp from radiation bombarding us from our galactic center one can conclude stars really are being eaten, their gravity can escape since it is a scalar field it does not require three dimensions to travel yet the radiation of the electromagnetic variety does therefore it cannot escape outside of random quantum tunneling. Or something like that.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman

byko3y

National Hazard

Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: dooM

posted on 28-5-2015 at 18:31

IrC, you gave very few information about you actually knew and what you derrived. Most likely the author of the book knew about neutrino-like particle existence and gave some theoretical model that implied neutrino existance. I wont to remind you, that posibility of neutrino existance was derrived from loss of momentum and spin, that could nt be explained by particles observed. There could be two insivisible particles, and you could not have any idea before you actually observe the particle, which werea already observed indirectly like 60 years ago.
And you don't know whether neutron is a single particle and not some sombined particles in one place. Nobody actually knows why beta decay and other particles conversions work. We have already observed a lot of different particles that interconvert, this leads to a theory that all those particles have the same nature. This is where string theory comes into play. But to create this theory you needed practical observations.
Energy, momentum and spin of neutrine were indirectly, but practically measured, otherwise you would not have any chance to know them. This is what I talk about - all those equitions you used were based on experimental data. 150 years ago everybody was sure newton's physics completely describes the world, just like your math does right now. Why? Because there's was no experimental data.
So, basically what I want to say and the point of our possible agreement: math helps to systematize and interpret the experimental results. You observe crystal structure, you measure it properties, you find similarities with other phenomenas.
And today nobody even knows what is the nature of gravity. Gravity slows down the time, but how and why? Well, you might eventually at some day find it after another experiment, but today the predictive power of theory, not capable of explaining gravitation mechanism, is really questionable.
The problem of theories about black holes is that mostly there's no way to verify them.
Something like neptunium told "it means that our model is not enough to go that far". The reality might be completely different from what we know. Black holes might b there just to show us that we know nothing.
Waves on the sea surface are hard to describe mathematically, but even a child can create them and predict their movement.
You know, I jerk off sometimes, and I'm not ashamed of it, but I'm not sure whether it's a serious bussiness and whether I should spend a lot of my spare time doing this. Otherwise it's fun and pleasant hobby.
Actually, I like the theory aga talks about : humans are time-constrained beings, so they are not able to fully observe the world, because any human observation is always done using time.

Zombie

Forum Hillbilly

Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline

Mood: I just don't know...

posted on 28-5-2015 at 19:40

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

Have not carefully looked at all of your post but lets think about this one thought. Suppose your correct even if we do not know where the mass is going, just that it is gone. Other dimensions outside our space-time for the sake of simplicity. Would not the gravitational field gradient be decreasing more rapidly than what can be accounted for by mere Hawking radiation if this were so? If one considers the orbital angular momentum of all the star systems in every galaxy and one considers galaxies we can see that are billions of light years away (and billions of years ago) comparing them to much closer ones should we not find evidence that all galaxies are flying apart? At least the spiral galaxies with super-massive black holes at their centers.

For whatever reason everything seems to have an orbit of sorts. Right down to the drain in the floor. Eventually.

Assume the BH is that drain in the floor. In the beginning I can see a random intake but eventually forces would balance, and a spiraling drain begins.
Couldn't this be likened to a BH?

The amounts, and types of radiation is sort of a clue I believe. IF this were some sort of massive compactor the amount of stored energy would be beyond comprehension.

I believe it has to be dissipated somehow. Say it is a positive charge. Just like a passing cloud. It has to dissipate.

As you say there are countless BH's all over the universe, and times that to the number of galaxies.
Chances are that we would have seen, detected, or had some observation of one such "discharge". Yet we have not.

So taking space time fabric, ans a physical thing... What's on the other side? Perhaps the discharge site that we know nothing about?

Just sayin'

I'm only thinking of the simple things that make sense. Like the fella that put meat on bread... It's a head slap moment.

So we KNOW black holes are MASSIVE, made up of ginormous amounts of compacted matter. We don't know what's the nature of this matter, but it ain't atoms, that's for sure!

Mass of 'our' black hole: 4.1 MILLION Sun masses (8.2 x 10<sup>36</sup> kg. A bit of a heavy weight, wouldn't you say?)

Well that is what I have said as well. I use the atom as the comparative. Like you stated the core of the sun does not contain atoms, only plasma.

Since a BH is so powerful, and the gravity so intense, what becomes of the atoms that are "eaten" by them?
That is really what I am getting at. How would you model that mathematically?

posted on 29-5-2015 at 06:51

Quote:

This is the root of my debating everything. Our perception of the only important variable is important only to us. It can not apply to universal formulas.

You should read some decent Philosophy to understand more about the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. I'm serious about that.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Yeah maybe I should. That would be like teaching a kid that a fish, can't be a pet tho.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

The problem of theories about black holes is that mostly there's no way to verify them.
Something like neptunium told "it means that our model is not enough to go that far". The reality might be completely different from what we know.

Actually, I like the theory aga talks about : humans are time-constrained beings, so they are not able to fully observe the world, because any human observation is always done using time.

You all know that game where everyone writes something down, and you combine it all into a story.
If you cherry picked this thread I believe there is the basis of either a qualify-able theory on black holes OR a qualify-able reason why we could never understand the whats, and whys.

I just seems to me(like so many other things) that this should be simple.

Pull the plug, and it all washes down the drain (black hole?)
or put it in the compactor until it is full.

Maybe it's just the scale of this that prevents us from understanding. A compactor that takes 100 trillion centuries to flash the full light or a galaxy that takes that long to drain.

Just thought of something... When people say the universe is expanding... How is that so? Our own planet is getting closer to the sun. Is it solar systems are getting further apart?

How does this relate to where our BH is?

Edit:
Where the heck did Hissingnoise wander off to?

[Edited on 5-29-2015 by Zombie]

They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

Zomb:

Quote:

Assume the BH is that drain in the floor. In the beginning I can see a random intake but eventually forces would balance, and a spiraling drain begins.
Couldn't this be likened to a BH?

Kindof. Compare the formation of galaxies (and their centres) to the formation of the Solar system.

Quote:

The amounts, and types of radiation is sort of a clue I believe. IF this were some sort of massive compactor the amount of stored energy would be beyond comprehension.

It is. Our BH hold a whole Galaxy together. Well, that and Dark Matter [cough!]…

Quote:

As you say there are countless BH's all over the universe, and times that to the number of galaxies.
Chances are that we would have seen, detected, or had some observation of one such "discharge". Yet we have not.

We have. See Hawking’s ‘Black Holes ain’t so black!’

Quote:

Since a BH is so powerful, and the gravity so intense, what becomes of the atoms that are "eaten" by them?
That is really what I am getting at. How would you model that mathematically?

We don’t know for sure. But the early stages of ‘compaction’ are understood, see neutron stars…

Quote:

Just thought of something... When people say the universe is expanding... How is that so? Our own planet is getting closer to the sun. Is it solar systems are getting further apart?

People don’t just ‘say’ that. It’s been proven, see Hubble’s incredible work on Doppler Shifts.

The Universe, as a whole is expanding but local areas can be contracting. There's no contradiction there.

Hissing Noise's gone looking for Russel's teapot!

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie

Forum Hillbilly

Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline

Mood: I just don't know...

posted on 29-5-2015 at 08:46

All of that makes sense, and is something I can work from. I like it when there are no contradictions between abstract ideas, and what is already known.

For the Teapot fella... That's why I'm asking so many rudimentary questions. You can't build a tea table in space if you don't have any building materials.

When I was a kid (8-9th grade) I loved math. Always straight A's. 11th grade I got a real jerk of a math teacher, and solely because we did not get along I lost interest in math.
I never gave that a second thought until today 40 years later I need math. Go figure. :mad:

[Edited on 5-29-2015 by Zombie]

They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.

IrC

International Hazard

Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

posted on 29-5-2015 at 09:38

So far I have learned blogs VDS theory is valid, while others provide personal information not needed nor desired on a science forum, and aga missed my point of higher dimensional thinking implied in my photon annihilation pair production comment. The point there is while our instrumentality may be confined to a maximum of four dimensions, nothing requires our thoughts to be so constrained.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 29-5-2015 at 11:32

posted on 29-5-2015 at 12:30

When I was a kid (8-9th grade) I loved math. Always straight A's. 11th grade I got a real jerk of a math teacher, and solely because we did not get along I lost interest in math.

Such are the vagaries of life! Omnia est vanitas.

Quote: Originally posted by IrC

The point there is while our instrumentality may be confined to a maximum of four dimensions, nothing requires our thoughts to be so constrained.

String Theory got my hanky in knots!

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by blogfast25]

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

Hmm.

Black hole is Massive, as in gravitationally massive.

It's also small, as in occupancy of XYZ space.

Also emits EM like there's no tomorrow (sic).

The Super Probe (maths) also says there's a seriously strong time distortion going on, starting at about the Event Horizon.

Maybe time for a rethink of the fundamentals, all of which were discovered on-planet by apes.

As an aside, i attempted to imagine the right angle-triangle thing, progressing through zero time, and measuring the distance to the hypotenuse.

This is a really cheap Thought Experiment by the way : no triangles were harmed.

To begin with it is quite painful to disregard Time.

In the end the Imaginary measurements were marred by bits of the triangle simply not being there at the point in X where i wished to measure the distance to Y.

At that particular X, the Y bits were off somewhere else in Time, as was i.

Now i see where psychodelic drugs can come in handy.

aga

Forum Drunkard

Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline

posted on 29-5-2015 at 12:33

Time machine :

It isn't a machine that moves us through Time that we need at this point, it is a Machine that we can build that is not doing everything relative to Time.

What we need for the next step is to build a Timeless Machine.

[Edited on 29-5-2015 by aga]

blogfast25

International Hazard

Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 29-5-2015 at 12:52