Hadron collider CERN

[The Code]

Edit: removed this post.....

[bystander]

Split the Atom.. Minor power/energy that our sun and most stars use...

Stars don't use fission, they use fusion.

[The Code]

Stars don't use fission, they use fusion.

So how do black holes work bystander? and why does matter/energy seem to want to get back to a place we know nothing about?

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

So how do black holes work bystander? and why does matter/energy seem to want to get back to a place we know nothing about?

Black holes are essentially passive. They work like a rock works. The only difference is their density.

Matter doesn't "want" to get anywhere. Mass and space interact in the way we describe as "gravity", and that's all you need to explain a black hole. The fact that we don't yet understand the interior of a black hole (assuming there is an interior) doesn't change anything.

[bystander]

So how do black holes work bystander? and why does matter/energy seem to want to get back to a place we know nothing about?

Not sure what this has to do with my last statement, but if I knew how black holes work, I could be famous, maybe even rich. Nobody knows how black holes work. All we know is that they are objects so dense that nothing escapes their event horizon, but you have been told that before.

[harry]

G'day

Bystander said

Not sure what this has to do with my last statement, but if I knew how black holes work, I could be famous, maybe even rich. Nobody knows how black holes work. All we know is that they are objects so dense that nothing escapes their event horizon, but you have been told that before.

That is one school of thought.

The research into ultra dense objects has shown properties that allows matter to escape UDBH via jets.
This is not a new idea. The process has been known for decades. Not only that the process puts a limit to the size of a UDBH.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2813
Is there an upper limit to black hole masses?

Authors: Priyamvada Natarajan, Ezequiel Treister
(Submitted on 20 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 31 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We make a case for the existence for ultra-massive black holes (UMBHs) in the Universe, but argue that there exists a likely upper limit to black hole masses of the order of $M \sim 10^{10} \msun$. We show that there are three strong lines of argument that predicate the existence of UMBHs: (i) expected as a natural extension of the observed black hole mass bulge luminosity relation, when extrapolated to the bulge luminosities of bright central galaxies in clusters; (ii) new predictions for the mass function of seed black holes at high redshifts predict that growth via accretion or merger-induced accretion inevitably leads to the existence of rare UMBHs at late times; (iii) the local mass function of black holes computed from the observed X-ray luminosity functions of active galactic nuclei predict the existence of a high mass tail in the black hole mass function at $z = 0$. Consistency between the optical and X-ray census of the local black hole mass function requires an upper limit to black hole masses. This consistent picture also predicts that the slope of the $M_{\rm bh}$-$\sigma$ relation will evolve with redshift at the high mass end. Models of self-regulation that explain the co-evolution of the stellar component and nuclear black holes naturally provide such an upper limit. The combination of multi-wavelength constraints predicts the existence of UMBHs and simultaneously provides an upper limit to their masses. The typical hosts for these local UMBHs are likely the bright, central cluster galaxies in the nearby Universe.

[Chris Peterson]

The research into ultra dense objects has shown properties that allows matter to escape UDBH via jets.

There is no research that suggests this. None. Zero. You have never posted a single reference to suggest that material escapes from black holes via jets.

While much about jets still remains to be explained, their basic mechanism is well understood- they are the product of infalling material that gets redirected outwards along the spin axis of an object with a strong magnetic field. None of the material in a jet was ever inside the event horizon of a black hole.

[northstar]

G'day from the land of oz


The Hadron collider may find the smallest subatomic particle that makes up Protons and Neutrons.

This is quite interesting

http://webcast.cern.ch/index.html

http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/

And it may not.

[The Code]

None of the material in a jet was ever inside the event horizon of a black hole.

How can you say that with any from of certainty?

Does a black hole grow? At what rate? Does a black hole Strip Atoms down to base particles? And cast off unwanted parts?
Who,s to say that black holes are not the reason behind expansion? They make the complete opposite to a star ,, including space time? We see matter/energy in our universe but only 50% of the form it takes.. The other 50% is on the inside of a black hole..? A black hole is a mirror image of the big bang.?

If everything came from ''nothing'', then it should go back to ''nothing'' ?

[Doum]

Quote "Does a black hole grow? At what rate? Does a black hole Strip Atoms down to base particles? And cast off unwanted parts? Who,s to say that black holes are not the reason behind expansion? They make the complete opposite to a star ,, including space time? We see matter/energy in our universe but only 50% of the form it takes.. The other 50% is on the inside of a black hole..? A black hole is a mirror image of the big bang.? "

Is it out of control to say : stop drinking. and/or smoke some stuff??? Gee..??!!

[harry]

G'day Chris

You said

While much about jets still remains to be explained, their basic mechanism is well understood- they are the product of infalling material that gets redirected outwards along the spin axis of an object with a strong magnetic field. None of the material in a jet was ever inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Mate you got it wrong big time.

Do a bit of research into magnetic fields created by dense matter.

and then do a bit of research into instabilities such as the weibel instability.

This may help up along. There are a number of papers, that may give you a gist and allow you to become awear. I would pick a few papers to read but! that would make me bias.

Weibel instability
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+We ... /0/all/0/1

[Chris Peterson]

None of the material in a jet was ever inside the event horizon of a black hole.

How can you say that with any from of certainty?

Because it's about as certain as anything can be. Jets are not formed from material inside a black hole. The basic mechanism behind jets is understood, and is found anywhere you have a fairly energetic rotating body with a magnetic field, and with infalling material. You don't need anything so exotic as a black hole.

Does a black hole grow? At what rate?

A black hole grows if it matter falls into it. The rate is well described by theory (that is, the increase in diameter for a given increase in mass). A black hole without any material to feed it does not grow. This describes most of the black holes in the Universe. Indeed, without new matter, a black hole actually gets smaller, although the rate is very, very slow.

Does a black hole Strip Atoms down to base particles? And cast off unwanted parts?

Unwanted? I don't know what that means. Nobody knows what state matter is in once it crosses the event horizon. However, we don't need to know anything about what goes on inside to understand what is happening outside.

Who,s to say that black holes are not the reason behind expansion?

As well say that the invisible purple unicorns are behind expansion. There are testable theories describing the mechanism of universal expansion, and AFAIK none of them involve black holes. If you want to suggest that black holes are the cause, back it up with theory. Otherwise it's meaningless speculation.

[Chris Peterson]

Mate you got it wrong big time.

Do a bit of research into magnetic fields created by dense matter.

"Dense matter" does not create magnetic fields. Bodies made of high density matter may or may not have magnetic fields. Whether they do or not has nothing to do with their density.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with your incorrect understanding that jets are made of dense material, or come from the inside of event horizons.

[northstar]

The fact that we don't yet understand the interior of a black hole (assuming there is an interior) doesn't change anything.

Assuming there are Black Holes.

[northstar]

Of course, none of this has anything to do with your incorrect understanding that jets are made of dense material, or come from the inside of event horizons.

Density is relative, is it not?

[northstar]

Black holes are essentially passive. They work like a rock works.

I think the plutonium used in nuclear bombs could be described as rocklike.

[Chris Peterson]

Density is relative, is it not?

Yes, but in the context of this discussion, "dense" refers to the sort of matter found in very compact objects like neutron stars and black holes, also called compact matter. Jets are not made of such matter (actually, there's little evidence that compact matter even exists outside of the interior of very dense bodies, with the necessary gravitational fields to create it). Jets are nothing more than tenuous gas and dust consisting of perfectly ordinary matter.

[Chris Peterson]

Black holes are essentially passive. They work like a rock works.

I think the plutonium used in nuclear bombs could be described as rocklike.

Yeah. And like a black hole, you wouldn't ask how plutonium "works". No material is absolutely stable, of course. Even plutonium can be considered passive and rocklike for most purposes.

[Chris Peterson]

Assuming there are Black Holes.

Kind of like saying, "assuming there are stars". You'll not find many astronomers who have any significant doubt that black holes exist. There is just too much observational evidence, with those observations in perfect agreement with what theory predicts we should see. And the theory itself is General Relativity, which is superbly supported by multiple lines of evidence.

The possibility that what we observe as black holes is actually something else is so small as to be unworthy of consideration in a general astronomy forum like this.

[northstar]

Assuming there are Black Holes.

Kind of like saying, "assuming there are stars". You'll not find many astronomers who have any significant doubt that black holes exist. There is just too much observational evidence, with those observations in perfect agreement with what theory predicts we should see. And the theory itself is General Relativity, which is superbly supported by multiple lines of evidence.

The possibility that what we observe as black holes is actually something else is so small as to be unworthy of consideration in a general astronomy forum like this.

Qute a difference between something seen and something imagined. Despite Einstein saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" there is no proof of any kind that Black Holes exist, so your comparison between Black Holes and stars is totally inappropriate. Also, there are reputable and accredited cosmologists worldwide who doubt, and even deny, the existance of Black Holes. Also, you judgement of what is fit for discussion in a general astronomy forum like this is totally inappropriate as that is responsibility of the moderators, is it not?

[northstar]

Hi everybody....
I hope we discover the whole shabang, god particles, a gang of other dementions, worm wholes.

And then we will be left to discover the Director or Directive Energy of those particles and dimensions?

[Chris Peterson]

Qute a difference between something seen and something imagined. Despite Einstein saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" there is no proof of any kind that Black Holes exist, so your comparison between Black Holes and stars is totally inappropriate.

By your logic, there is no proof that electrons exist, either. Most of what we observe in nature we observe indirectly. And the observations of black holes are extensive.

Also, there are reputable and accredited cosmologists worldwide who doubt, and even deny, the existance of Black Holes.

No there are not. Such a denial would remove all credibility. Perhaps what you meant to say is that there is a very small number of reputable cosmologists who are working with alternate theories in an effort to explain black holes.

Also, you judgement of what is fit for discussion in a general astronomy forum like this is totally inappropriate as that is responsibility of the moderators, is it not?

My judgment is my judgment. One need not be a moderator to have an opinion on what belongs here. I didn't suggest you should be banned. My point was only that the arguments against black holes are extremely technical, extremely difficult to understand (how's your tensor calculus, these days?), and really out of place on a forum like this that is mainly about general astronomical topics.

[northstar]

By your logic, there is no proof that electrons exist, either. Most of what we observe in nature we observe indirectly. And the observations of black holes are extensive.

The observations are of effects which may be caused by something. There is no proof whatsoever that Black Holes are causing the effects.

Also, there are reputable and accredited cosmologists worldwide who doubt, and even deny, the existance of Black Holes.

No there are not. Such a denial would remove all credibility. Perhaps what you meant to say is that there is a very small number of reputable cosmologists who are working with alternate theories in an effort to explain black holes.

I meant to say exactly what I said, and I will not use up space to repeat it. Please don't try to put words into my mouth as if you are an educator and I am a child. Your attitude of 'polite (misplaced) authority and compassion for the less intellectually gifted' is not endearing or attractive in any way.

Also, your judgement of what is fit for discussion in a general astronomy forum like this is totally inappropriate as that is responsibility of the moderators, is it not?

My judgment is my judgment. One need not be a moderator to have an opinion on what belongs here. I didn't suggest you should be banned. My point was only that the arguments against black holes are extremely technical, extremely difficult to understand (how's your tensor calculus, these days?), and really out of place on a forum like this that is mainly about general astronomical topics.

I refer you back to "your attitude of polite (misplaced) authority and compassion for the less intellectually gifted is not endearing" nor is it in the least attractive or necessary in a forum such as this. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[The Code]

mark swain wrote:Split the Atom.. Minor power/energy that our sun and most stars use...


Stars don't use fission, they use fusion.

Black holes are essentially passive. They work like a rock works. The only difference is their density.

Matter doesn't "want" to get anywhere. Mass and space interact in the way we describe as "gravity", and that's all you need to explain a black hole. The fact that we don't yet understand the interior of a black hole (assuming there is an interior) doesn't change anything.

Black holes don't use anything for power. They don't consume energy.

A black hole grows if it matter falls into it. The rate is well described by theory (that is, the increase in diameter for a given increase in mass). A black hole without any material to feed it does not grow. This describes most of the black holes in the Universe. Indeed, without new matter, a black hole actually gets smaller, although the rate is very, very slow.

My body,, on the surface of the little mass ''sun'' would weigh 1.5 tons.... What is the pressure that turns hydrogen into helium? via fusion... Now if we times that by 1 billion what happens to sub atomic particles then? If matter was not been stripped back to base elements and particles before passing past the event horizon, would there not be a bottle neck of matter clumped around a black hole? We no black holes grow,, And what is happening is a form of processing. turning heavy matter back to what it was before,,, it fussed inside a star.

[Qev]

By your logic, there is no proof that electrons exist, either. Most of what we observe in nature we observe indirectly. And the observations of black holes are extensive.

The observations are of effects which may be caused by something. There is no proof whatsoever that Black Holes are causing the effects.

Black holes happen to be the current best theoretical explanation for the effects observed. Kind of like how electrons are the current best theoretical match to the effects we observe in things like electronics and particle physics. If you've got a different theory for what's producing black-hole-like behaviour that astronomers observe, then propose it and back it up with observations that show it's a better theory. That's how science works.