I was wondering if a supermassive blackhole expelled a large gamma ray burst that hits a smallish blackhole square on from less than a lightyear. Could that energy dislodge any materials or capture the singularity in its momentum
I have a question . Please do answer. According to Newtonian mechanics , for gravitational force to act on some particle .it should have mass and should have particle nature And according to relativity if a particle gains velocity equal to speed of light ,it looses it's particle nature , Here if we consider particle mature of photon . We just can't use Newtonian mechanics . Then how can we say that due to strong gravitational field , light cant escape through it ?
Actually, since black holes have accretion disks, which are insanely hot, and naked singularities _don't_ have that layer of warmth, they are *_literally_* naked, and space itself *IS* very cold.
They warp space around a lot, so they would be easy to see by the way they distort the image of stars behind them. Gravitational lensing. And no, Victor, their mass is not zero, not at all. To learn more look up "Kerr metric".
thedeemon But under which conditions they could even possibly exist having this much gravity but not creating an even horizon by pulling photons towards them? Reid didn't say about it either (unless I was listening with my butt) but this is like the most obvious question here.
It's all about the ratio between angular momentum and mass. If the angular momentum is high enough, then equations predict such effect. Such black hole must be formed by huge amount of matter that rotates with high speeds in one direction. It's only a mathematical prediction, we don't think any physical process can really lead to such state. There are many ideas why such state should not really be possible.
thedeemon Well I guess then either it would spin so freaking fast the photons (somehow) would just bounce off of it or one literally shouldn't be able to imagine how this could happen, not from a classical physics perspective anyway. ...or I'm just dumb.
What do you think of the idea of a Planck Star? If you assume that the center of a black hole is just filled to the maximum packing density of the Universe rather than being infinitely dense, then surely all of the paradoxes would disappear?
We don't have any evidence, this is all just theoretical for now. More often than not, however, if something is elegant theoretically, it points us in the right direction. I mean, we don't have any direct evidence for an infinitely dense singularity either, it's just the maths that points us in that direction.
@@andrey4898 I wouldn't say this is the issue. There's no force of nature holding up stars - it's outward fusion pressure, then electron degeneracy pressure, and then neutron degeneracy pressure that holds up different stars against the force of gravity before a black hole finally forms. The deal is that there's nothing about light or causality that has to be overcome to resist an infinity result. The speed of light is only pertinent to the event horizon, which also only means it keeps us from measuring events happening deeper within the black hole. The matter itself is still on an inward journey towards the singularity, and the singularity being a point of infinite mass and density is the problem. What we need is a description of some kind of degeneracy pressure that can't be overcome no matter the force of gravity upon it. Some kind of Planck Pressure.
Yes because the event horizon wouldn't exist and it wouldn't take an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. Also light would escape the Planck star at very low energies.
More like the eye of a storm. When a storm cell forms, in this case a tornado or hurricane, it pulls in everything around it. However, at the center the weather is different then in the event horizon around it. Would that not be a logical conjecture?
It would be really interesting to find out that Dark Energy is just the left over Naked Singularities of stars billions of years old. The problem is the amount of Dark Energy vs. the amount of possible Naked Singularity stars. Still a fun idea.
Balancing a pencil on the pointy end is actually quite simple but only if you wish it to be. Use a softer surface such as clay and embed the tip in it, rubber band several together so the tips create many stable points of contact or even use magnets to help suspend the pencil on end. Every problem can have it's perimeters interpreted from a different perspective. Further defining the rules which govern the problems we need to solve are the real issue for me. Sadly...just as in the Hawking example, we just don't have enough data yet to start making bold statements. Fun video and curious ideas though!
What if the singularity is a hypersphere (4d sphere) and we can only observe the edge of the said sphere because the rest of it is in the other dimension. As it absorbs mass and matter it continues to build up on the 4th dimension. Makes me wonder if the big bang was just a ball rolling down the 4d hill.
How would a naked singularity even work? By definition, if it has mass, it has gravity- and if it has gravity, it has a schwartzchild radius. As small as this radius may be, it's still bigger than "infinitely small", so something with no volume that has mass (even a tiny amount of mass) would default to becoming a black hole. So from what I can tell, you really can't have a singularity without a black hole around it. It's basically trying to have mass with no gravity.
I've read that - according to general relativity calculations - a rotating black hole wouldn't actually have an event horizon, if its rate of rotation is high enough.
MikeRosoftJH, the event horizon becomes flatter the faster it spins. But it can't spin faster than the speed of light which happens to be the point where the poles would reveal the singularity. So yeah, I have the same question as the OP: how would this even work?
The answer is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric Rotating black holes indeed. If angular momentum gets higher than certain value, the two event horizons meet and disappear. And yes, rotating black holes have two horizons: outer and inner. Schwarzschild solution is a simplified edge case of non-rotating black hole.
I'm pretty sure Roger Penrose is a mathematician, not an astrophysicist, even though he has contributed significantly to mathematics relevant to astrophysics and cosmology.
0:55 The zero volume point, aka the singularity is a misconception. It is based on Einsteins formulas about gravity, and of course, there is a mathematical singularity. But to explain the insides of a black hole, we need at least quantum theory, maybe something else. For Example, how should the universe hold the information about how much particles are inside the black hole inside a zero volume point? If so, then one particel, or zwo particels, or 4 particles, are all of the same size. But you need to store the information somehow. And we know the matter is still there because of its gravity. So what's more likely is that the matter gets extremely compressed, like plank-length-compressed, but not to are zero volume point compressed. That is just a misuse of a formula that make good predictions on our regular matter. And even mathematically, you can't get to infinity, or infinite small, anyway. You can always just approach towards it.
i don't think that the concept of either a naked singularity nor of a black hole would even apply here. you're talking about a state 'before' there was even space or time
I believe that there may, according to my limited knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics, be a small window where the Singularity has enough mollecular density to bend light around it but never catch it. In this case, we couldn't be able to see the singularity, not would we see an event horizon, but rather a point in space where light is bent around a region of seemingly empty space. The margin for this to take place, however, would be on such a fragile, narrow wall, that any small loss in Mass would cause the Singularity to suddenly expand rapidly, and any extra mass would cause it to collapse further, forming an event horizon where no light can escape. In addition, we don't know what the singularity looks like. It could either be brighter than a Quazar, or may produce no light at all. All I know is that if they did exist, they would certainly be highly radioactive, and unstable.
Hey Guys and Gal, I took her up on the Brilliant offer just shy of a year ago and love it. I am a 62 year old biker and Brilliant is perfect for an addled mind like mine. I will never slow down. I get jazzed by it several times a week. Perhaps more often that I enjoy this wonderful effort that is Sci Show Space. Keep up the good work.
I thought you could also potentially see the singularity if somehow you found a very quickly spinning black hole or spun it up yourself (crazy hard). Because even though the singularity is infinitely small it can be made into an infinitely thin pancake if spun up which would then poke out the sides of the event horizon allowing you to see it.
@@marv5078 I think it would stay more spherical but some squishing would probably happen. I think it might still be theoretically possible and I recall hearing about it.
I dont quite understand how two virtual particles popping into existence of either side of the event horizon would cause the black hole to evaporate. If the particle on the outside of the event horizon never passed through the event horizon, then its not adding mass to the black hole, nor removing mass from it, but the particle inside the event horizon would be adding mass, and not evaporating it...?
as far as I understand, those two particles are of opposite charges, so let's say if the negative one popped inside the event horizon, then it will annihilate another positive particle from the inside, so the black hole will lose mass
Virtual particles form in pairs of matter & anti-matter If the 1 that forms inside is the anti-matter the matter one Would be released to the universe and the anti-matter explodes inside the black hole
microbuilder virtual particles take energy from the vacuum and in this case the energy still must be returned so it takes some energy from the black hole and sense alot of energy is a tiny amount of mass you why it takes so long for the black hole the evaporate
A very simplified answer: To create particles you need energy, which comes from the black hole. When a particle is created, an antiparticle is also created. When they two collide they annihilate each other and the energy is liberated into the black hole, but when a particle/antiparticle is created in the event horizon, there are possibilities that they are created in opposite sides. When that happens the half of the energy used to create the particles is lost
One thing that always bugs me a bit about videos like this is when they talk about how the singularity is "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense". The density being "infinite" and size being "zero" are part of the math of relativity (in fact, they are mathematical singularities which are points in functions which are not well defined or well behaved). However rather than indicating the object is actually infinitely small, it indicates that the mathematical model is incomplete and isn't accurately describing what happens at that particular point in the real world. It's not that the cores of black holes are infinitely small, it's that they become so small and dense that they are affected by things on a sub-atomic planck-like scale that we can't observe or predict. So while the math says the center of a black hole has "no size and infinite density", in reality it's simply that the math and physics aren't fine tuned enough at those extreme scales to be able to actually describe what happens at those insane ends of the relativity spectrum.
The singularities are infinitelly small, but still all black holes need to have more mass than a neutron star (after all this is that makes then black holes, more mass that surpasses neutron degeneracy preassure) and this minimun mass would be enough to keep the event horizon always distant from the singularity
Well, it's Saturday, that means that there will be countless naked singularities all over, looking into a glass of something and wondering where it all went wrong...
If I understand correctly, a naked singularity is a point of infinite density without enough mass to capture light. They don't seem that unlikely if you look at it that way (even though the mathematics of infinities are always a bit odd).
Imagine a binary black hole system, two black holes orbiting each other. Now if the other black hole would be way more massive than the other: could the more powerful gravitational force at times 'expose the singularity' of the smaller one? If the bigger black hole's gravity should overcome the smaller one's gravity to the point its escape velocity should dip under the speed of light, at least regionally.
No. Because the gravity of the bigger one, it's still finite at any set distance from it, while you could get arbitrarily close to the little one and at some point you'd reach a point of no return. The gravity of either one is unbounded as you get closer and closer. It doesn't matter if the larger black hole has more gravity in general and pulling you the other way, there's no limit to how high the gravity of the smaller one gets the closer you get to it. So its point of no return would simply be a little bit further in.
I think I said this once somewhere but I'll say it again, When the black holes hawking radiation temperature is higher than the blackbody temperature of the universe you'll first see a flash of light called the naked singularity then a white hole until you see it evaporate in a flash of bright light.
Well, one very simple thought... the singularity is the point in space where all the mass of the black hole is centered and the event horizon is the "bubble" around it, in which even light can't escape the gravity. So, basically the mass of the singularity would determine how big the event horizon is, because the more mass you have, the bigger your gravity is and the bigger the radius of the gravitational field which is strong enough to pull light in. So the diameter of the event horizon should grow proportional to the inverse quadratic strength of gravity, which is determined by mass. To cut a long story short: the more massive the singularity, the bigger the event horizon. But then, in conclusion, there should be a point where the event horizon is equally large as the singularity, right? So, it would be "naked". And also, if you take curved space into consideration, you can send messages from inside the event horizon using light, because with gravity curving space, light travels in a straight line, not a curved one, when traveling around a black hole, where the space itself is curved and makes it look like the light is "bent". In this case, the event horizon would be the region of space after which the curvature would be so extreme, that every ray of light that isn't perfectly radial to the singularity will travel in circles until the black hole evaporates. And in this theory, black holes evaporate because the high density of the mass creates heat, which is infrared light, which can travel in a straight line from the singularity through the event horizon into the universe. This lets the black hole lose energy and hence, mass. And it's the same principle as in biology, the larger the body, the smaller the heat-loss compared to the size. This explains why black holes accelerate to evaporate when they can't suck any mass in, they're lossing mass, so their getting smaller, the event horizon get a bigger surface compared to its volume and more energy can escape it. At least that makes some sense to me...
The gravitational gradient can be survivable but since all the forces/force carrying particles also travel at the speed of light no part of you closer to the singularity could interact with any part of you further away. Probably just a quark mist when all is said and done.
Nijaitchy I've seen that video too somewhere, but still get confused as to how the gravitational force inside gigantic blackhole's event horizon is not strong enough to kill you. The event horizon is the part where not even a light could escape right? no matter how big the diameter of the blackhole. I mean if the gravitation is strong enough to prevent light from escaping, how couldn't it rip you apart?
Because it isn't the force of gravity it is the gradient of the force they are referring to. Free fall in all constant gravity fields are indistinguishable.
0:50 Actually the singular set is not a single point, it's a surface (see the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinate system representation to check it). In the nonrotating case (static aka. Schwarzschild) this surface represents "end points" of all the paths of free fall into the hole. In the rotating case (stationary aka. Kerr, probably the only one actually occurring) this surface can be an actual "place outside existence" (technically: the Schwarzschild singular set is spacelike, the Kerr singular set can be timelike). BTW, the odd thing is that ancient mystics, including the classic Christian ones, have always talked about something they called "the Void". In the words of e.g. Jakob Boehme writing around the year 1500 that the Void is incomprehensible, infinitely rigid, without dimension or extent. Some of them also refer to it as a _"wall_ of nothingness" which curiously matches the current physical model I mentioned above. So going back to that physical model: it's actually incorrect to say that the singular set exerts a gravitational _pull._ What exerts that pull is a region inside the horizon, it's a sort of one-way street. OTOH the singular set _itself_ is gravitationally _repulsing._ In the Schwarzschild (nonrotating) case this doesn't manifest itself because the "one-way street" region inside the horizon extends all the way to the singularity, so it always pulls in. But in the rotating (Kerr) case, that "one-way street" region _stops before_ the singular set and once the infalling object reaches that region, it will feel gravitational _repulsion_ from the singular set which BTW in this case is shaped as a circle (ring). The repulsion is strong enough that in order to fall _through_ the ring, the infalling object needs a bit of power (propulsion) to push through. On the "other side" there is an uber-bizarre feature sitting near the singular ring: a _time machine._ It's a region (shaped like a slightly distorted torus) with the following property: if you run around it, the faster and the more times around the better, you'll emerge from it at a time _earlier_ than you started! This alone probably indicates that the entire singularity concept is likely an artefact of the theory (i.e., general relativity) and will likely go away in a future theory. Horizons will probably stay though, as they are really observed. Last but not least, at 6:09 the name "Schwarzschild" is pronounced incorrectly which is more or less "ShfahrZ-shield", where the "Z" denotes the same sound as the "zz" in "pizza" or the "z" in "Mozart". It means in English "black-shield", not a bad name considering the concept :-)
I have a lot questions here. Like what would a naked singualarity look like? being a point of mass it is neccessarily smaller than it's swartschield radius. Are they hot? Could we detect them? Would they behave in the same ways as a black hole?
I really want to believe that there's just this "thing" behind the event horizon, but it just doesn't add up; whatever it is, it's too small and too dense to even make sense of it. I think we're just gonna have to accept that until at least the year 300 billion when we transcend.......
good question, I don't like infinities. That is why I like the Planck lenght as the smallest possible. My question is if a 10 solar mass singularity is infinitley small/dense, what is the difference then to a 10bn solar mass supermassive black hole. Both have infinite values?
yea, i thought that was weird too. i think the implication was that the singularity forms in the supernova, then the singularity build the black hole? im going to have to look up this penrose theorem...
One of the things that determines the distance between the event horizon and the singularity is the rate at which it spins. the faster it spins the closer the event horizon is to the singularity. This supposedly what limits the rate of rotation of a black hole. I wonder if a naked singularity could be spinning infinitely fast. then would it really be spinning at all (the effect is has one space around it and its magnetic field)?
Density or p = m (mass) over v (volume), and at 1 minute into the video he says a singular's volume = 0. So if p=m/v and v is 0 so in the example p=m/0 then my teachers weren't kidding if you tried to divide by zero you'd create a black hole!
So, just as a matter of clarification, if the singularity is infinitely dense, isn't that what is CAUSING the black hole? So what would the hypothetical properties of the naked singularity be? Wouldn't it also have insane gravity? Wouldn't it eventually become a black hole again if it was given a lot of mass to munch, and thus increasing its gravitational pull? Or is this singularity too weak on its own to crush more matter into its infinitely dense core? Or in other words, are you suggesting there is a gradient, on which at some point there isn't enough gravitational pull to crush more mass, but just enough to hold it together? So what would happen if you did add matter to it? Would it simply pile up in a very dense manner around the outside of it, but wouldn't further add mass to the infinitely dense center? What would the interaction of a naked singularity with matter even be?
i love him and feel mean as well as the guilt but this comment made me snort=laugh out loud tbf, as unexpected scrolling down, serious comments all read.. then this and it just had me hit so suddenly with a line of comedy gold. well done
Question. How could a black hole shrink because of a virtual particle interaction? If half goes into the black hole and half escapes into space the black hole shouldn't lose any mass since it's technically taking on more mass. Not letting some go. Hawking never made much sense with Hawkins radiation. A black hole would care less about a virtual particle interaction. I also believe there is no singularity. There's nothing more than a Plank Star at it's core disturbing the Spacetime around it due to it's insane mass at such small scales.
how would that even work? if its a naked singularity. a point that has infinite density there has to be some point at which light cant escape its gravitational pull right?
Exactly. This whole video and the very concept of a naked singularity is nothing but mental masturbation on a contradictory concept. It's like pondering if a square circle could exist. He's correct about one thing though ... if one would exist within our Universe, it would indeed change the whole world of physics.
As I understand it, for naked singularities, the "event horizon" falls below the one-dimensional "surface" of the singularity - it becomes negative in value as measured by radius out from the singularity. This does not make logical sense, though it does make mathematical sense. One theoretical composition of a naked singularity would be a singularity comprised of particles which all have the same electric charge, or another - that the singularity has large angular momentum or spin. Celestial bodies have never been observed with appreciable net charge, however, and the required spin is absurdly high to remove the event horizon. I think the idea is that electric repulsion (think the entire energy of the universe in a singularity) can overcome the gravitational attraction.
from my understanding that would mean that it has simultaneously infinite density and no mass. which is a weird concept to say the least. seems like another "spherical object in a vacuum" deal.
It technically can't be infinitely dense, if it is larger than nothing, since that means the black hole would have infinite mass. And if it doesn't have a volume, then its mass would be 0 and so density won't matter.
This video just highlighted something interesting that I was previously thinking nothing about and that is from the infinitely tiny (quantum mechanics) to the infinitely dense(general relativity) regardless of the formula that links them together there was still a very specific point of time/energy where the governing rules passed the baton off to one another, which is indeed very intreresting.
You won't get its signals back. Even worse, due to time dilation for you it will look like the robot never crosses the event horizon, gets stuck nearby, frozen in time.
Question, if gravity propagates at the speed of light mass should do the same. If light can’t propagate and escape from a black hole gravity also can’t propagate. Therefore mass should not be able to escape and we should have zero mass on the surface of a black hole and also we should have zero gravity on the surface. In the future the idea of someone falling into a black hole might seem as mad as someone falling off the edge of the world!
What about this: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.
First sentence is false. If you do general relativity (one of the best proven physical theories out there), gravity isn't "propagating" in the same sense as EM radiation is, it's just an effect of the curvature of space, which isn't bounded by the black hole. Also falling in a black hole is like falling in the Sun. Takes a ton more energy to get in the Sun than to get away from it.
The problem, I believe, is that Einstein conceptions of gravity are perturbations of a spatiotemporal fabric. Light sits on this fabric and so its worldlines will bend toward the singularity (which is why, despite having no mass, light can be lensed by significant masses). The perturbations of the fabric, however, sit _within_ rather than _on_ this fabric and so aren't affected by such curvature. On the QM side, there isn't a for-sure quantum theory of gravity, but the gist of it is: virtual particles carry forces (like gravity and electromagnetism) and, due to being virtual, aren't bound by the same laws of physics. So they're free to travel faster than light to escape a singularity. For better details, see David Kornreich's piece here: curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/451-how-do-gravitons-escape-black-holes-to-tell-the-universe-about-their-gravity-advanced
To say that something get's "sucked' into black hole would be to say that we are being sucked into Sun right now. TyDreacon That article you linked posed a ton more questions than it answered. Like, WAY more. I'll have to ask QFT professor about that someday.
Puff,TheMagic You could sarcastically summarize a majority of these videos as "Yes," "No," or "Maybe" but that's basically true with any question. You aren't being clever nor are you accurate with what the video said.
Thank you Anstign! I would also like to add that, for science, simply having the answer (yes/no) is only all that useful if you know the reasons behind it. Otherwise it's not very practical information, as you can't derive a lot of further information from it. Knowing WHY, gaining understanding, is the entire point.
when you apply general relativity to black holes you get infinity. When you apply both relativity and quantum mechanics to black holes you get an infinite sequence of infinities, infinitely worse.
Is it possible for gravitational waves to escape a black hole? I ask because, if you could somehow rig a device to alter gravitational waves in a reliable and predictable way, and you gave control of that to a observational probe that could survive crossing the event horizon of a black hole, then you could possibly, with an array of very sensitive equipment, receive information from beyond the event horizon of a black hole, transmitted by gravity waves.
If you remember the discussion of black holes in the text on General Relativity, it notes that in nature, a necked singularity cannot exit. This is the cosmic censor argument.
I'm going to side with Hawking on this one. Naked singularities can't exist. Why? Because the strength of a gravitational field increases as you approach the center of the field. If you're dealing with a normal object, you'll eventually have to start drilling into the object to get closer to the center, and the gravity from the material above you will cancel-out the gravity from the material below you, until you reach the center where the gravity pulling on you from all directions cancels-out completely. However, a singularity has zero diameter, so you can get all the way to the center without having to drill into the singularity. So the gravitational field just keeps increasing the closer you get to the singularity, and eventually the gravitational field will be strong enough to form an event horizon. The event horizon might only have the width of a proton, or a quark, or an electron, but the event horizon will exist, and it will obstruct any exterior view of the singularity.
There's a black hole Sagittarius A, at the center of our own galaxy, the Milky Way. it's so massive do we even have any idea at all if it has a singularity, naked or otherwise, at it's center? Our own black hole also spans a very large area of space, a diameter of .0158 AU according to some sources on Google. That's a very significant amount of space that our own galaxy's black hole is taking up for something that is supposed to be a singularity. Also, it appears that something can escape from a black hole. Hawking radiation, according to Google. At least that's the theory. I think i need to lie down for a while. :D
Assuming naked singularities can exist; what could cause one to occur? Assuming dark stars exist (stars so massive that their light cannot escape their gravity, and thus form an event horizon. But that sill aren’t massive enough to collapse internally and form a singularly.) This would mean that a dark star would be more massive than a naked singularity. Does this mean a massive star could somehow spatially implode without having the mass necessary to make an event horizon? What could it be made up of or what properties could it have that would let it to do that?
@SciShow Space, Is a naked singularity the same as a Planck Star from a Black Hole that emitted enough Hawking Radiation over time to reduce the event horizon smaller than the circumference of the object itself?
Are you able to do a video explaining what people mean when they say that there could be up to 13 dimensions in our universe? I've heard it being used, like how you say in this video that things would be different if we had a different number of dimensions, but I've never had anyone explain what that actually means.
I want to point something out , a singularity is really any point that causes problems, some singularities come about your point of reference like coordinate similarities like at the north and South Poles.
besides loving the videos i have a small complaint. Schwarzschild is german, and the 'sch' in schild is pronounced the same way as the 'sch' in schwarz. I hear many english speaking folks say it as: schwarz-child which is a little sad because Schwarzschild is also a wierdly accurate name for him and his findings such as the schwarzschild radius. It's literally translated as: black shield (as in a black shield surrounding the singularity)! Almost as if he was destined to research this subject :D.
I had no idea that astrophysics was this complicated and like particle physics. I'm intrigued. I don't know how this Info could apply to my research but particle physics does tremendously. Words similar closely to the recursive nature of matter. It's super secret research...I'm doing to fulfill the mission of noetech solutions.
so a naked singularity is a singularity without the gravitational pull that black hole have right? but isnt the gravitational pull itself what creates a singularity in the first place? what creates/makes/holds up the singularity if the gravitational pull is gone?
would like to see the documents that entail the authorization and intergalactic zoning permits required for a catastrophic, irreversible stellar collapse...bet they are really. really complicated
"In, through, and beyond." -- _The Black Hole_ (Walt Disney Productions), a 1979 film sampled by Stephen Hawking in the video version of _A Brief History of Time._
Problem is we don't see a black spot. They're too small and too fsr away. We only can see gravitational effects and accretion disks with associated jets (if those are present). We can't even normally see light distortions like what's in the thumbnail as you need to be super close to use anything in the range of stellar masses (as opposed to galactic masses) to get appreciable gravitational lensing. We normally only detect them by their effect on matter near them, be it accretion disks, stars orbiting them, or something flashy like that.
I want to know exactly how they know that there is a "singularity" at the center of a black hole. They tell us that all the matter from a massive star collapses down to a point smaller than an atom. If true, where did all that matter go? I understand a neutron star, where the atoms get smashed down, to where there is no space between atoms, but the matter is still there. It's just become extremely dense. How do they know that a black hole isn't just a more dense neutron star, where the gravity is strong enough to suck in light? That would make more sense than saying all that matter just disappeared, but the gravity is still there. If there is no matter, then how can there be gravity? There could be a very dense neutron star inside the event horizon, but we can't tell because light can't escape.
Somebody help me. When 2 particles spontaneously pop into existence and 1 outside the EH escapes while the 1 inside does not, how is that evaporation? It sounds to me like you just added more mass, not the opposite. What am I not understanding?
Maybe there is no such thing as gravity, instead mass causes time dilation gradient (i.e. rate of causality dilation) which causes mass to want to move from faster to slower time (i.e. where the larger mass is) ?
