Starship Asterisk*

Ann wrote:The "Discuss" link took me to the wrong APOD.

Ann wrote:A fascinating thought is whether or not spacetime itself is capable of "rupturing" right next to a black hole that is spinning perhaps as fast as the speed of light.

Ann

Papillon wrote:A dumb question-
They say nothing can escape from black hole. Even light cannot escape the gravity of a black hole. Then how come a jet is emanating from the top?

Ann wrote:The "Discuss" link took me to the wrong APOD.

owlice wrote:Try here. Have fun!

Psnarf wrote:Does all matter approaching from an angle between the accretion disk and the jet always end up at the outer edge of the accretion disk?
It is my feeble understanding that inside the event horizon, space-time gets so wacky that time replaces the space dimension and forward time points toward the center. Stuff can't get out, except Hawking Radiation, because for the same reason we can't go back in time. The concept of a singularity eludes me. Whatever part of an atom that still exists at the event horizon would get compressed beyond the ability of whatever quantum particles are still there to repel each other. I don't know how to calculate the result of two particles breaking the combined force of their repulsion, or what happens next. The transition into other particles as depicted here http://cpepweb.org/ cannot occur. For E=mc^2, the gravitational compression would have to exceed E. Sew! what do you get, bundles of E heading for the center from all directions? I imagine those E's would be quite large because the 'm' for each particle would exceed c^2.
Please excuse me, my head exploded; I'm off to retrieve the pieces.

Psnarf wrote:It is my feeble understanding that inside the event horizon, space-time gets so wacky that time replaces the space dimension and forward time points toward the center. Stuff can't get out, except Hawking Radiation, because for the same reason we can't go back in time.

Psnarf wrote: The concept of a singularity eludes me. Whatever part of an atom that still exists [close to the center] would get compressed beyond the ability of whatever quantum particles are still there to repel each other. I don't know how to calculate the result of two particles breaking the combined force of their repulsion, or what happens next.

Chris Peterson wrote:
It's really not worth speculating about the inside of a black hole, unless you're a theoretical physicist exploring HIGHLY speculative ideas, most of which barely rise to scientific standards of testability.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2012/12/14/when-you-fall-into-a-black-hole-how-long-have-you-got/ wrote:
When You Fall into a Black Hole, How Long Have You Got?
By George Musser | Scientific American, December 14, 2012 |

<<In chatting with colleagues after a talk this week, Joe Polchinski said he’d love to fall into a black hole. Most theoretical physicists would. They are just insanely curious about what would happen. Black holes are where the known laws of physics come into their most direct conflict. The worst trouble is the black hole information paradox that Stephen Hawking loosed upon the world in 1976. Polchinski and his colleagues have shown that the predicament is even worse than physicists used to think.
........
The least radical conclusion is that the no-drama principle is false. Someone falling into a black hole doesn’t pass uneventfully through the horizon, but hits a wall of fire and is instantly incinerated. “I think it’s crazy,” Polchinski admitted. But in order for a black hole to decay and its contents to spill out, as quantum mechanics demands, the infalling observer can’t see just a vacuum. The firewall idea strikes me as similar to past speculation that black holes are somehow material objects—so-called black stars or dark matter stars—rather than merely blank space.

“I spent 20 years confused by this,” Polchinski said, “and now I’m as confused as ever.” It would be nice to answer the question, if only so that no one ever has to undertake the journey to answer the question.>>

Spin results from a transfer of angular momentum, like playing on a children’s swing. If you kick at random times while you swing, you’ll never get very high. But if you kick at the beginning of each downswing, you go higher and higher as you add angular momentum.

Similarly, if the black hole grew randomly by pulling in matter from all directions, its spin would be low. Since its spin is so close to the maximum possible, the black hole in NGC 1365 must have grown through “ordered accretion” rather than multiple random events.

Psnarf wrote:We can never know what's the deal in there, no information has ever escaped.