Missing Link Found?

[The Code]

Quote:
An extraordinarily bright object in a galaxy 290 million light-years away could be a new type of black hole—one that Goldilocks would approve of.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -hole.html

So there maybe a distinction between the big and the small? Old and The very Old....The plot thickens..

Mark

[neufer]

Quote:
An extraordinarily bright object in a galaxy 290 million light-years away could be a new type of black hole—one that Goldilocks would approve of.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -hole.html

So there maybe a distinction between the big and the small? Old and The very Old....The plot thickens..

A moon sized black hole?

<<"Shine On, Harvest Moon" is the name of a popular early-1900s song credited to Jack Norworth and his wife Nora Bayes. It was one of a series of moon related Tin Pan Alley songs of the era. The song was debuted by the composers in the Ziegfeld Follies of 1908 to great acclaim. It became a pop standard, still very familiar some 40 years later, and continues to be performed and recorded occasionally into the 21st century. Like many old popular songs, the verses are often left out, although the verses for this song are musically quite good and set off the chorus well. Also like many songs of that era, the song has an ethnic undercurrent. The duet of Billy Murray and Ada Jones recorded a popular version of the song. They performed the song in a stereotyped African American style, though not taken to the excess of some other recordings of that era.>>

• The night was mighty dark so you could hardly see,
  For the moon refused to shine.
  Couple sitting underneath a willow tree,
  For love they did pine.
  Little maid was kinda 'fraid of darkness
  So she said, "I guess I'll go."
  Boy began to sigh, looked up at the sky,
  And told the moon his little tale of woe
  
  Chorus
  
  Oh, Shine on, shine on, harvest moon
  Up in the sky;
  I ain't had no lovin'
  Since January, April, June or July.
  Snow time ain't no time to stay
  Outdoors and spoon;
  So shine on, shine on, harvest moon,
  For me and my gal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... n-1908.jpg

[Chris Peterson]

Quote:
An extraordinarily bright object in a galaxy 290 million light-years away could be a new type of black hole—one that Goldilocks would approve of.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -hole.html

So there maybe a distinction between the big and the small? Old and The very Old....The plot thickens..

The teaser you quote above is poorly written: a new type of black hole. What the article actually discusses is a new class of black hole, which is a very different thing. An intermediate mass black hole is no different in terms of its physics than either a stellar mass black hole or a supermassive black hole. A black hole is a black hole. The only question with respect to black holes in this intermediate mass class is under what conditions they might be able to form. Such objects don't seem likely to teach us much about black holes in general, but rather they could serve as a type of probe into the conditions that existed during their creation.

[The Code]

The teaser you quote above is poorly written: a new type of black hole. What the article actually discusses is a new class of black hole,

You will find that the teaser I quoted,, was not written by me,,but was an abstract from the article you just read...

[Chris Peterson]

You will find that the teaser I quoted,, was not written by me,,but was an abstract from the article you just read...

I know. That's why I said you quoted it <g>.

[The Code]

I know. That's why I said you quoted it <g>.

Any way,,,,

Can i be correct, from reading this article, That the big black holes 18 billion s/m etc etc,, where created by singularity particles from the big bang? if a singularity explodes could it have been a black hole that caused the big bang? A compressed ball of particles ??? And that,s what black holes do re cycle particles??? but on a huge scale..

[Chris Peterson]

Can i be correct, from reading this article, That the big black holes 18 billion s/m etc etc,, where created by singularity particles from the big bang?

I'm not aware of any such thing as a "singularity particle". There are a number of ideas about how supermassive black holes could form. Most simply involve the accretion of a large amount of mass under special conditions that avoid the problems that usually prevent them from growing beyond a certain size. There is also the idea that they formed as primordial black holes, which (if they exist) were created from very high pressure shortly after the Big Bang.

[The Code]

I'm not aware of any such thing as a "singularity particle".

Black holes grow bigger when they merge etc etc. This the case, Where does the singularity start? does it get bigger? i,m aware that these questions have never been answered,,, if a single point singularity exists in all black holes does the ''point'' vary in size? when two singularities merge they must grow bigger? Is it possible that a singularity can not exist inside most black holes and to form one requires all the matter/energy in the hole universe?

[Chris Peterson]

Black holes grow bigger when they merge etc etc. This the case, Where does the singularity start?

Since you are talking about a physical thing, I think it is best to avoid the term "singularity". That is a mathematical concept, and is certainly reflected in the way current theories break down when describing the "interior" of black holes. But it need not have a physical analog. Black holes are not "singularities", they are real, physical things with many well understood properties. Things like the way they merge are also described by solid theory that does not treat them as singularities.

i,m aware that these questions have never been answered

Actually, the process of formation for an ordinary stellar mass black hole from the gravitational collapse of a star is pretty well understood.

if a single point singularity exists in all black holes does the ''point'' vary in size?

As previously noted, speculation about the interior of black holes is largely outside the realm of current theory, and is therefore pretty meaningless from a scientific standpoint (and scientific discussion is the charter of this forum).

[The Code]

i,m aware that these questions have never been answered


Actually, the process of formation for an ordinary stellar mass black hole from the gravitational collapse of a star is pretty well understood.

Where did you see me ask this:? Talk about cloud and the ''very British Teapot'' Actually the process of formation for an ordinary stellar mass black hole from the gravitational collapse of a star is pretty well understood by me as well....

As previously noted, speculation about the interior of black holes is largely outside the realm of current theory, and is therefore pretty meaningless from a scientific standpoint (and scientific discussion is the charter of this forum).

Check out the heading where this forum post is placed under... Anything astronomy related ....

[bystander]

Check out the heading where this forum post is placed under... Anything astronomy related ....

Check out the rules: This is a scientific forum which focuses on astronomy;

[Chris Peterson]

Check out the heading where this forum post is placed under... Anything astronomy related ....

Check out the forum rules, in particular:

5. This is a scientific forum which focuses on astronomy; there are hundreds of internet discussion fora where ideas outside the scope of this one can be freely discussed, so if you want to discuss any such topic, please join one of them. In particular, religion and politics are out of our scope.

That reference to "scientific" is an important one, and is enforced by thread locking and member banning when things get too far from science for too long. There have been many discussions here about science (perhaps before you started participating); in general, however, keeping a topic scientific means dealing with proper theories- ideas that can be described clearly, have supporting observation, and are in some way testable. Idle speculation of a philosophical nature is largely discouraged.

[The Code]

Chris:

After every one of my sentences there was a question mark? because i do not know. But I agree there must be rules and i will Adhere to them.

Thanks

Swainy

[The Code]

As previously noted, speculation about the interior of black holes is largely outside the realm of current theory, and is therefore pretty meaningless from a scientific standpoint (and scientific discussion is the charter of this forum).

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508095

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Condensed matter ( Black holes) is not beyond science.

This paper you may find interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1929
QCD against black holes?

Authors: Ilya I. Royzen
(Submitted on 10 Jun 2009)

Abstract: Along with compacting baryon (neutron) spacing, two very important factors come into play at once: the lack of self-stabilization within a compact neutron star (NS) associated with possible black hole (BH) horizon appearance and the phase transition - color deconfinement and QCD-vacuum reconstruction - within the nuclear matter. That is why both phenomena should be taken into account side by side, as the gravitational collapse is considered. Since, under the above transition, the hadronic-phase vacuum (filled up with gluon and chiral $q\bar q$-condensates) turns into the "empty" (perturbation) subhadronic-phase one and, thus, the corresponding (very high) pressure falls down rather abruptly, the formerly cold (degenerated) nuclear medium starts to implode into the new vacuum. If the mass of a star is sufficiently large, then this implosion produces an enormous heating, which stops only after quark-gluon plasma of a temperature about 100 MeV (or even higher) is formed to withstand the gravitational compression (whereas the highest temperatures of supernovae bursts are, at least, one order lower). As a consequence, a "burning wall" must be, most probably, erected on the way of further collapsing the matter towards a black hole formation.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1709
Phenomenology of 10^32 Dark Sectors

Authors: Gia Dvali, Michele Redi
(Submitted on 11 May 2009 (v1), last revised 26 Jun 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We postulate an exact permutation symmetry acting on 10^32 Standard Model copies as the largest possible symmetry extension of the Standard Model. This setup automatically lowers the fundamental gravity cutoff down to TeV, and thus, accounts for the quantum stability of the weak scale. We study the phenomenology of this framework and show that below TeV energies the copies are well hidden, obeying all the existing observational bounds. Nevertheless, we identify a potential low energy window into the hidden world, the oscillation of the neutron into its dark copies. At the same time, proton decay can be suppressed by gauging the diagonal baryon number of the different copies. This framework offers an alternative approach to several particle physics questions. For example, we suggest a novel mechanism for generating naturally small neutrino masses that are suppressed by the number of neutrino species. The mirror copies of the Standard Model naturally house dark matter candidates. The general experimentally observable prediction of this scenario is an emergence of strong gravitational effects at the LHC. The low energy permutation symmetry powerfully constrains the form of this new gravitational physics and allows to make observational predictions, such as, production of micro black-holes with very peculiar properties.

[Chris Peterson]

As previously noted, speculation about the interior of black holes is largely outside the realm of current theory, and is therefore pretty meaningless from a scientific standpoint (and scientific discussion is the charter of this forum).

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508095

This paper doesn't discuss structure of the interior of a black hole, but the behavior of an event horizon as seen from the inside- basically, surface effects. Most important, however, this is essentially a mathematical exercise, not science at all. As the author notes, "The aim of this paper is to perform a detailed analysis of the radiation of the inner horizon of the Reissner-
Nordström black hole. We would like to point out, however, that our analysis predicts very little astrophysical
consequences because no mechanism for the formation of Reissner-Nordström black holes is known."

[The Code]

These people must think its worth talking about..

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... dshow.html

[Chris Peterson]

Condensed matter ( Black holes) is not beyond science.

"Condensed matter" is not synonymous with "black holes". Condensed matter is what you get when enough particles are bound together to interact significantly. A brick or glass of water would be considered condensed matter. I think you may be referring to "compact matter", but even that isn't synonymous with black holes.

I don't believe anybody has suggested that either compact matter or black holes are beyond science.

[Chris Peterson]

These people must think its worth talking about..
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... dshow.html

I was involved in the production of this film, and I do think it's very interesting. But understand that, as science, it is very weak. What was done was to take the equations that describe a black hole, and create a simulation of what would happen if you could cross the event horizon. It's an abstract application of theory that is known to be incomplete (or even to fail) under those conditions, and it doesn't yield results that anybody knows how to test (thus, they are unscientific by definition).

The film is a method of boosting general interest in astronomy among the museum-going public, but it shouldn't be seen as high science.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Please read up on the topic.
Chris do you ever read papers?

Compact matter, condensed matter, ultra dense plasma matter, Neutron Matter, quark composite matter, Neutrino matter, Preon matter and dense matter are terms used in many papers.

But! You will not find black hole matter.

Regardless

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3720
Condensed Matter Astrophysics: A Prescription for Determining the Species-Specific Composition and Quantity of Interstellar Dust using X-rays

Authors: Julia C. Lee, Jingen Xiang (Harvard), Bruce Ravel (NIST), Jeffrey Kortright (LBNL), Kathryn Flanagan (STScI)
(Submitted on 19 Jun 2009)

Abstract: We present a new technique for determining the *quantity and composition* of dust in astrophysical environments using <6keV X-rays. We argue that high resolution X-ray spectra as enabled by the Chandra and XMM-Newton gratings should be considered a powerful and viable new resource for delving into a relatively unexplored regime for directly determining dust properties: composition, quantity, and distribution. We present initial cross-section measurements of astrophysically likely iron-based dust candidates taken at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Advanced Light Source synchrotron beamline, as an illustrative tool for the formulation of our methodology. Focused at the 700eV Fe LIII and LII photoelectric edges, we discuss a technique for modeling dust properties in the soft X-rays using L-edge data, to complement K-edge X-ray absorption fine structure analysis techniques discussed in Lee & Ravel 2005. This is intended to be *a techniques paper* of interest and usefulness to both condensed matter experimentalists and astrophysicists. For the experimentalists, we offer a new prescription for normalizing relatively low S/N L-edge cross section measurements. For astrophysics interests, we discuss the use of X-ray absorption spectra for determining dust composition in cold and ionized astrophysical environments, and a new method for determining *species-specific gas-to-dust ratios*. Possible astrophysical applications of interest, are offered. Prospects for improving on this work with future X-ray missions with higher throughput and spectral resolution are presented in the context of spectral resolution goals for gratings and calorimeters, for proposed and planned missions such as Astro-H and the International X-ray Observatory.

I'm off to bed for now.

The next post I will correct you in more ways than one.

[The Code]

It got my interest. But i understand what your saying. Black holes are largely unknown subjects... anything about them is speculation, an can never be proven. science comes to a dead end.

[Chris Peterson]

It got my interest. But i understand what your saying. Black holes are largely unknown subjects... anything about them is speculation, an can never be proven. science comes to a dead end.

I'm not saying that (if you're responding here to me). Black holes are not largely unknown subjects. Many aspects of them are well understood, described by high quality theories that produce testable (and tested) predictions. Most discussion of the interior of black holes is highly speculative, is not well described by theory, and is currently difficult or impossible to test. As such, the physics of black hole interiors is weak. Just because it is speculative now doesn't mean it will always be that way, nor that science will come to a dead end. But it is important to distinguish between strong, well supported science and ideas that aren't yet well developed.

[aristarchusinexile]

Idle speculation of a philosophical nature is largely discouraged.

Please remember these words your own when you speak of the theory of black holes as if Black Holes have been proven to exist.

[Chris Peterson]

Please read up on the topic.
Chris do you ever read papers?

This is very funny, since it is obvious that you don't understand the references you post.

Compact matter, condensed matter, ultra dense plasma matter, Neutron Matter, quark composite matter, Neutrino matter, Preon matter and dense matter are terms used in many papers.

Yes, they are. What's your point? Surely you understand that the terms are not used synonymously?

But! You will not find black hole matter.

One does find rather speculative papers about the possible nature of the material making up black holes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3720
Condensed Matter Astrophysics: A Prescription for Determining the Species-Specific Composition and Quantity of Interstellar Dust using X-rays

And the relevance of this paper is what, exactly? It is about ways of measuring properties of condensed matter, in this case, dust. It has nothing to do with black holes, compact matter, or anything relevant to this thread.

The next post I will correct you in more ways than one.

You do that. But think before you do. And if you post any links, make sure they have something to do with the point you are trying to make, and state that point first.

[Chris Peterson]

Please remember these words your own when you speak of the theory of black holes as if Black Holes have been proven to exist.

Nothing has been proven to exist. But the existence of black holes is about as well supported by observation as the existence of electrons. From a practical standpoint, both can be treated essentially as facts.