A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

Discuss celestial objects and phenomena outside the Earth's atmosphere, Earth-launched satellites and exploratory missions, etc....

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#21  Postby campermon » May 03, 2016 5:36 pm

minininja wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Actually, the video's assertion that NOTHING can escape a black hole isn''t strictly correct, even disregarding Hawking evapoation. I'm thinking of a space rocket approaching a super-massive BH. In this case, it is physically plausibe for the rocket to cross the event horizon (where the gravity is not so strong as to tear everything apart), but then direct its thrust so as to escape again. This is something that ordinary particles cannot do, as they do not have their personal rocket motors. Of course, this doesn't work for stellar-mass black holes which would tear any rocket (and its crew) apart before they could get near the horizon.

:scratch: If photons can't escape from the other side of the event horizon, even if they are emitted directly away from he singularity, how could a rocket escape seeing as it can't accelerate to faster than the speed of light? And what difference do you think it makes being a super-massive black hole as opposed to a stellar-mass black hole?


Perhaps David has misunderstood this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

:ask:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#22  Postby DavidMcC » May 03, 2016 6:19 pm

campermon wrote:
minininja wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Actually, the video's assertion that NOTHING can escape a black hole isn''t strictly correct, even disregarding Hawking evapoation. I'm thinking of a space rocket approaching a super-massive BH. In this case, it is physically plausibe for the rocket to cross the event horizon (where the gravity is not so strong as to tear everything apart), but then direct its thrust so as to escape again. This is something that ordinary particles cannot do, as they do not have their personal rocket motors. Of course, this doesn't work for stellar-mass black holes which would tear any rocket (and its crew) apart before they could get near the horizon.

:scratch: If photons can't escape from the other side of the event horizon, even if they are emitted directly away from he singularity, how could a rocket escape seeing as it can't accelerate to faster than the speed of light? And what difference do you think it makes being a super-massive black hole as opposed to a stellar-mass black hole?


Perhaps David has misunderstood this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

:ask:

Not at all! I'm trying to make you understand that the known properties of BHs only apply to free-falling objects, which no doubt are trapped within the event horizon. In the case of a super-massive BH, objects are not necessarily tormn apart by the sheer gravity gradient at the EH.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#23  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2016 6:25 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations, although it has some rather bizarre properties. For r < rs the Schwarzschild radial coordinate r becomes timelike and the time coordinate t becomes spacelike. A curve at constant r is no longer a possible worldline of a particle or observer, not even if a force is exerted to try to keep it there
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#24  Postby DavidMcC » May 03, 2016 6:34 pm

Thommo wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations, although it has some rather bizarre properties. For r < rs the Schwarzschild radial coordinate r becomes timelike and the time coordinate t becomes spacelike. A curve at constant r is no longer a possible worldline of a particle or observer, not even if a force is exerted to try to keep it there

I don't need a curve at constant r, Thommo. My understanding is that an external observer never sees a particle fall through the EH, even though it does fall through, and that is why it seems to the external observer to be stuck at r, and be more and more red-shifted.
Last edited by DavidMcC on May 03, 2016 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#25  Postby Thommo » May 03, 2016 6:38 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thommo wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations, although it has some rather bizarre properties. For r < rs the Schwarzschild radial coordinate r becomes timelike and the time coordinate t becomes spacelike. A curve at constant r is no longer a possible worldline of a particle or observer, not even if a force is exerted to try to keep it there

That assumes free-falling particles, Thommo, which is myb point, exactly.

No. Just no.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#26  Postby minininja » May 03, 2016 6:43 pm

David, quite apart from you being contradicted by everything I've read (e.g. what Thommo has highlighted above), what you're saying still doesn't make sense. If a photon can't escape, what good would any amount of rocket boosters do? They can't accelerate it (or any other object) to any faster than it's already going.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1597

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#27  Postby DavidMcC » May 03, 2016 6:50 pm

Thommo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thommo wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric
The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations, although it has some rather bizarre properties. For r < rs the Schwarzschild radial coordinate r becomes timelike and the time coordinate t becomes spacelike. A curve at constant r is no longer a possible worldline of a particle or observer, not even if a force is exerted to try to keep it there

That assumes free-falling particles, Thommo, which is myb point, exactly.

No. Just no.

I suspect that there is confusion in the wiki article between what the external observer sees and what actually happens to the particle. I do not accept the wiki claim that nothing is allowed to cross back out, as if the EH was some kind of one-way "brick wall".
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#28  Postby DavidMcC » May 03, 2016 7:04 pm

... To an external observer, there seems to be no way IN to a BH, yet there is in reality. My suspicion is that something comparable occurs on the way out- you never seem to be right on or within the EH, but you can be observed to be outside it when you are.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#29  Postby minininja » May 03, 2016 7:08 pm

I don't know much physics, but I'm beginning to suspect you just like to make it up. Your "suspicion", and you "do not accept" what it says on wikipedia? Are you able to give any sort of clear explanation of you claims or link to anything that backs you up?
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1597

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#30  Postby SkyMutt » May 03, 2016 7:31 pm

The paper I cited earlier in this thread does discuss using a rocket inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole. As I mentioned previously, nowhere does it describe the possibility of using a rocket to escape the event horizon, because as the first sentence of the abstract notes:

It has long been known that once you cross the event horizon of a black hole, your destiny lies at the central singularity, irrespective of what you do.


The paper was written by a professor of astrophysics with a very impressive list of publications to his name, in collaboration with a physicist specializing in cosmology who has since earned her PhD. I see no reason to doubt that they know what they're talking about. Certainly if it had become known since 2007 that using a rocket would allow escape from the event horizon of a supermassive black hole, some inkling would have managed to escape beyond the confines of the dreaded paywalls. They're not black holes, after all.
Serious, but not entirely serious.
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 856
Age: 65
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#31  Postby campermon » May 03, 2016 8:02 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
campermon wrote:
minininja wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Actually, the video's assertion that NOTHING can escape a black hole isn''t strictly correct, even disregarding Hawking evapoation. I'm thinking of a space rocket approaching a super-massive BH. In this case, it is physically plausibe for the rocket to cross the event horizon (where the gravity is not so strong as to tear everything apart), but then direct its thrust so as to escape again. This is something that ordinary particles cannot do, as they do not have their personal rocket motors. Of course, this doesn't work for stellar-mass black holes which would tear any rocket (and its crew) apart before they could get near the horizon.

:scratch: If photons can't escape from the other side of the event horizon, even if they are emitted directly away from he singularity, how could a rocket escape seeing as it can't accelerate to faster than the speed of light? And what difference do you think it makes being a super-massive black hole as opposed to a stellar-mass black hole?


Perhaps David has misunderstood this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

:ask:

Not at all! I'm trying to make you understand that the known properties of BHs only apply to free-falling objects, which no doubt are trapped within the event horizon. In the case of a super-massive BH, objects are not necessarily tormn apart by the sheer gravity gradient at the EH.


I was speculating as to the source of your claim re: photons escaping the event horizon once they've passed through it.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#32  Postby twistor59 » May 03, 2016 8:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
I can't get a reference, especiaslly as science on the internet has largelty disappeared behind paywalls, but also because all objects that encounter black holes are just dumb particles, without a rocket motor of their own - ie, they are simply falling under gravity. Unfortunately, most scientists have tended to ignore this, and not think out of the box about it. That is why they assume that anything that crosses the EH is forever trapped in orbit, even though that orbit tends to be elliptical, and therefore go outside the event horizon much of the time.


DavidMcC wrote:What is wrong with the first sentence, twistor?


1) Science, particularly physics, has never been so open. The arxiv has made tons of stuff available free to us civilians.
2) There is no requirement for "objects that encounter black holes" not to have rocket motors. Rockets follow timelike curves. Not timelike geodesics when the rockets are on, but timelike curves, that also most definitely cannot escape the event horizon.

As for the second and third sentences...... :o
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4966
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#33  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 04, 2016 6:08 am

DoctorE wrote:Black holes have been largely theoretical until the LIGO observations announced earlier this year.


That was the experiment which confirmed the existence of black holes via detection of gravitational waves as well as confirming the existence of gravitational waves via detection of black holes based on a single observation event, right?

Hell of an experiment, that one.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#34  Postby DavidMcC » May 09, 2016 1:54 pm

twistor59 wrote:...
2) There is no requirement for "objects that encounter black holes" not to have rocket motors. Rockets follow timelike curves. Not timelike geodesics when the rockets are on, but timelike curves, that also most definitely cannot escape the event horizon.

...

Maybe the requirement not to have rocket motors isn't mentioned because black holes never encounter particles with their own rocket motors, so they are simply not mentioned in the theory of black holes. People then assume that rockets are just as impotent as free-falling particles to escape the event horizon.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#35  Postby Thommo » May 09, 2016 2:18 pm

Still no.

SkyMutt wrote:The paper I cited earlier in this thread does discuss using a rocket inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27476

Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#36  Postby campermon » May 09, 2016 6:42 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
twistor59 wrote:...
2) There is no requirement for "objects that encounter black holes" not to have rocket motors. Rockets follow timelike curves. Not timelike geodesics when the rockets are on, but timelike curves, that also most definitely cannot escape the event horizon.

...

Maybe the requirement not to have rocket motors isn't mentioned because black holes never encounter particles with their own rocket motors, so they are simply not mentioned in the theory of black holes. People then assume that rockets are just as impotent as free-falling particles to escape the event horizon.


I sense some deep seated misconceptions re: gravity here.

Please share with us how 'potent' a rocket motor can be in order to liberate a body from beyond the event horizon.

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#37  Postby BWE » May 09, 2016 6:50 pm

all it needs is infinite thrust.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2863

Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#38  Postby DoctorE » May 10, 2016 6:16 pm

User avatar
DoctorE
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11067
Age: 64
Male

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#39  Postby SkyMutt » May 10, 2016 9:39 pm

Interesting ideas there, but nothing Hawking says supports the idea that a rocket could be used to escape from inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole. This was essentially a repeat of a lecture he gave at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, described here.

For decades, physicists have been perplexed by the question of what happens to the information of particles passing through black holes. (Physicists define “information” to be all the properties of a particle—it’s a technical term not to be confused with its more universal meaning). Quantum mechanics says information can’t be permanently destroyed. But if information enters a black hole and cannot escape, then to all intents and purposes, it has been destroyed. And that seems to violate the laws of quantum physics.

So what’s the solution? Hawking now believes that the information never really enters the black hole to begin with.
“I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but on its boundary, the event horizon,” he said.


From the video description:

The event horizon is the sphere around a black hole from inside which nothing can escape its clutches. Hawking is suggesting that the information about particles passing through is translated into a kind of hologram – a 2D description of a 3D object – that sits on the surface of the event horizon. “The idea is the super translations are a hologram of the ingoing particles,” he said. “Thus they contain all the information that would otherwise be lost.”

In the 1970s Hawking introduced the concept of Hawking radiation – photons emitted by black holes due to quantum fluctuations. Originally he said that this radiation carried no information from inside the black hole, but in 2004 changed his mind and said it could be possible for information to get out.

Just how that works is still a mystery, but Hawking now thinks he’s cracked it. His new theory is that Hawking radiation can pick up some of the information stored on the event horizon as it is emitted, providing a way for it to get out. But don’t expect to get a message from within, he said. “The information about incoming particles is returned, but in a chaotic and useless form. This resolves the information paradox. For all practical purposes, the information is lost.”
Serious, but not entirely serious.
User avatar
SkyMutt
 
Posts: 856
Age: 65
Male

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: A Journey into a Black Hole Collision

#40  Postby Acetone » May 20, 2016 9:15 am

DavidMcC wrote:
campermon wrote:
minininja wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Actually, the video's assertion that NOTHING can escape a black hole isn''t strictly correct, even disregarding Hawking evapoation. I'm thinking of a space rocket approaching a super-massive BH. In this case, it is physically plausibe for the rocket to cross the event horizon (where the gravity is not so strong as to tear everything apart), but then direct its thrust so as to escape again. This is something that ordinary particles cannot do, as they do not have their personal rocket motors. Of course, this doesn't work for stellar-mass black holes which would tear any rocket (and its crew) apart before they could get near the horizon.

:scratch: If photons can't escape from the other side of the event horizon, even if they are emitted directly away from he singularity, how could a rocket escape seeing as it can't accelerate to faster than the speed of light? And what difference do you think it makes being a super-massive black hole as opposed to a stellar-mass black hole?


Perhaps David has misunderstood this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

:ask:

Not at all! I'm trying to make you understand that the known properties of BHs only apply to free-falling objects, which no doubt are trapped within the event horizon. In the case of a super-massive BH, objects are not necessarily tormn apart by the sheer gravity gradient at the EH.
I don't understand. How are say photons "free falling"?

Also, it seems kind of silly to say that these properties only apply to free falling g objects because scientists hadn't yet thought "what if the objects goes the other way?"

Its like you're saying blackholes are the exact same as every other body. Free fall and being stuck in free fall unless something acts to change that is true of every object with mass in the universe... By definition though that isn't the case with a black hole. Right?
Acetone
 
Posts: 5440
Age: 35
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Astronomy & Space Science

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest