# Thread: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

1. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Originally Posted by Frogmarch
yes, that sounds right.

Well then the light from the torch would just blueshift in, reflect and redshift out. Not sure what effect reflecting off an object collapsing at close to the speed of light(in its own time frame) would have on the frequency of the light reflected...redshift it I think.

As it would be reflected off a small sphere the light would go off in all directions, but I do believe that some photons would leave the object, and return to the torch holder.
Ok, so at this point, I must repeat my question:
Are you saying that the gravitational pull currently calculated (Enough gravity to warp or bend spacetime so drastically as that spacetime is bent back in itself, causing light to also be curved back inward) is in error and that the object would have less gravitational pull?
Or, are you saying that the object would have the same currently calculated gravity but that spacetime would not behave in that way?

2. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

I don't know.
I guess that I think Space-time doesn't behave in the way they think of it....On BAUT they said that a dimension actually collapses within the EH....I think that is bollox...how does a dimension 'collapse', you either have a dimension or you don't.

3. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

If nothing can ever cross any event horizon, then no, space-time isn't going to behave like they think it will.

4. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Originally Posted by Frogmarch
I don't know.
I guess that I think Space-time doesn't behave in the way they think of it....On BAUT they said that a dimension actually collapses within the EH....I think that is bollox...how does a dimension 'collapse', you either have a dimension or you don't.
Frogmarch:
What you are doing, as near as I can tell, is being a skeptic. And that is a fine thing.
You heard something that is fantastic and you say, "I find that hard to believe." What greater statement for science is there than that?

However, at that point you still have choices to make. One of them includes being willing and able to
- Examine evidence
- Accept evidence that you understand even if it conflicts with your preconceived notions
- Remain vigilant against personal bias
- Question the evidence that you still either do not understand or still find hard to believe

Now, taking your above statement, you say it sounds like bollocks that a dimension can collapse.
But dimensions are a Physical Reality and a physical reality can collapse. Is it possible that you have a misunderstanding as to what a dimension is?

5. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

we live in 3 dimensions plus time. Take one of the space dimensions, up and down.....doesn't matter how much you 'collapse' it, as long as you can go up and down you still have that dimension....that's what I mean; you either have it or you don't.....anyway, I don't really want to go too much into that, it gives me a headache.

if we dropped a dimension we would have either 2 dimensions, plus time, or we would have 3 dimensions without time.....not sure which they mean.

if we go to 2 dimensions; I'm not sure how you would will the spherical EH with that.....a flat surface.

6. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Originally Posted by Frogmarch
we live in 3 dimensions plus time. Take one of the space dimensions, up and down.....doesn't matter how much you 'collapse' it, as long as you can go up and down you still have that dimension....that's what I mean; you either have it or you don't...
But if you collapse it, then you may not be able to move up and down. It would be a physical reality that has collapsed and that makes it inaccessible to a dimensional being such as ourselves.
Originally Posted by Frogmarch
anyway, I don't really want to go too much into that, it gives me a headache.
Well, I suggest you pop a pill because if you are going to question the theory, you had best be ready to confront that question with answers.

7. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Double post.

I would have preferred to wait until Frogmarch has replied. Perhaps he will be back later with a bottle of paracetamol at his disposal.
Since in the UK they don't have Tylenol
But I know myself well enough that if I can try to make a consistent post, I should. So I will confront those answers and questions above and pass Frogmarch a water bottle along the way:

Information.

It seems a simple word but that word has some pretty far reaching implications.
Information is a bit like energy in physics because it is a basic tenet that neither can be destroyed.
The trouble with black holes and with a certain Stephen Hawking is that the "Hawking radiation" hypothesis of black holes opened up the possibility that information is destroyed in a black hole.
This is because of how Hawking Radiation is surmised to work. As a particle anti-particle pair interact near a black hole, one of the pair may be drawn into the BH before the two can complete their interaction. One particle is ejected and one creates a loss of mass within the BH. A tiny, tiny, tiny amount but given enough time, it implies that a black hole could evaporate.
If one did, all the interactions, all the information of those interactions, all the evidence, would be destroyed since these particle and anti-particle interactions appear random. The information would be lost.
Again, that sounds simple but the theories of Relativity and of Quantum Mechanics both agree that information cannot be destroyed. In order to reconcile this information being lost, one of those theories would have to go.
But both theories are very well supported by strong evidence. Black Holes are demonstrated to exist but the mechanics of them are largely hypothetical. So the primary contender than becomes that Black Hole Theory is all kinds of wrong- as Frogmarch says.
Hubble directly observes the disc around a black hole | ESA/Hubble
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...=64&cat=exotic
One possibility is that the Gravitational interactions may not be anywhere near as severe as we thought. Maybe the mechanics of spacetime in the vicinity of a black hole is different, somehow.
Unfortunately, direct observations of Black Hole contenders and the emissions from them support, heavily, the claim that they are very, very, intensive gravity wells, just as the math predicts.
With String Models, came hope.
Using the properties of String Theory, some astrophysicists submitted papers showing that information could be smuggled out of a black hole.
And here is how:
The information on 3D space can be contained in the 2D boundary. And the effect of gravity is irrelevant in 2 dimensional space since you need 3 dimensions to form a gravity well.
IF part of dimensional space collapsed at that boundary, then information and the working models would be saved. When mathematical models were submitted in papers showing that this could happen, things started looking good.
[hep-th/9607235] Black Holes in String Theory
This meant that Hawking radiation in 3 dimensions could be described in 2 dimensions without gravity. And if information is preserved there, then it must also be preserved in the 3D world. The implication: information must be escaping from the black holes.
But another problem soon popped up.
In order for the information to be "not lost" it must also be accessible. One of the early axioms of Hawking Radiation was that the particle pair was entangled. That quantum entanglement now returned to thwart efforts to access the information that would be contained at the 2D boundary.
To get at it, the entanglement would have to be severed. This releases a lot of energy, separating an entangled pair and you must preserve the one that will carry information from the black hole. Severing the ties for the magnitude of particles involved would create what they called a "Firewall" around the black hole. The amount of energy released would be indescribable. And there is no observational evidence of such massive energy bursts from well observed contenders.
Worse, this violates the equivalence principle of General Relativity. Physicists were right back where they started and with a more baffling problem.
But.. what if the severing of entanglement occurred at the right distance? Far enough away and the energy released would be greatly reduced and the firewall problem would be solved.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0533
[hep-th/9508151] The black hole information paradox
[1108.2015] Models for unitary black hole disintegration
This model carries a prediction that could be tested:
When two black holes merge, they may produce distinctive ripples in space-time that can be detected by gravitational-wave observatories on Earth.
Lo and behold...
LIGO and NASA may have observed a gamma-ray burst from colliding black holes | ExtremeTech
Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016) - Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

-Passes Frogmarch a waterbottle- You thought I'd forget, didn't you?

8. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Wow thats actually opposite. Only half is lost. Because only hlf is lost the particle is missing the other half. Therfore the lost partition is mirrored and can be replaced. Saying, eventhough half the matter is gone the other exists, and the lost matter can be duplicated is his whole point. The funny part is that the lost matter may never be destroyed if the matter is transported to another area. Which he nor you can prove that matter can be destroyed. Never... only transformed. We split attoms to make nuclear weapons. Live learn love (Life) enjoy.)

9. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

Opposite? Half is lost? What are you talking about? It is as if you hear only what you want, them make up the rest.

10. ## Re: Imagined trip towards a black 'hole'.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...z4K/story.html

Page 3 of 6 First 12345 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•