Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

30

Those objects are orbiting closely to SgrA${}^{*}$, certainly, but they are not orbiting closely enough to exhibit significant time dilation effects. In particular, consider the Schwarzschild spacetime. The inner most stable circular orbit around the central obect is at $r = 6M$, three Schwarzschild radii away. This makes the time dilation factor: ...


27

At first many people didn't care much for black holes. But later people showed that they were pretty unavoidable features of the theory of general relativity and that theory made other quite precise predictions that were tested and found good. So when you are told that black holes are required if you have GR and GR looks like the best game in town then it ...


16

...why do we trust black hole physics? ... (physics which is derived by combining quantum mechanics and GR such as Hawking Radiation, things relating to the Information Paradox, etc. ) Formally, there isn't quite a reason to because we've not observed these things yet. But that's also perfectly okay as well because that is how science sometimes works: ...


13

The angular momentum and charge of an electron are both large enough that a black hole would not form. If you believe classical general relativity all the way down to the scale of an electron (and you really shouldn't), then the electron will form a naked singularity. More exactly, for the case of a spinning body, the horizon is at the zero of $$r^{2} - ...


11

It is a truly unfortunate coincidence that the "escape velocity" at the Schwarzschild radius $R_\mathrm{S}$ is $c$. This leads people to think Newtonian mechanics can predict black holes. It can't. Note that a Newtonian escape velocity is the minimum velocity needed to coast to infinity against gravity. If you have less speed, you still travel away from the ...


10

Have a look at the paper Experimental Evidence of Black Holes, which describes the experimental evidence that would prove the existance of black holes. There is little point in me reproducing the contents of the paper here, but it's worth giving a couple of examples: One method is to measure the mass and radius of an object. For example we can measure the ...


6

Why don't electrons collapse into black holes? Because the electron isn't a point-particle. Its field is what it is. It isn't some speck that has a field, it is that field. There's energy in that field, that energy has a mass-equivalence, and it doesn't have a zero volume. Also note that we can diffract electrons. And that the Einstein-de Haas effect ...


5

About evidence supporting the existence of Event Horizons in these very compact objects, here are some news from the well known Cygnus X-1, one of the most studied compact objects and the most promising candidate for a stellar collapse black hole: ... evidence of just such an event horizon may have been detected in 1992 using ultraviolet (UV) ...


5

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you may be misunderstanding time dilation. Time dilation will not cause the stars to seem to move more slowly. The apparent velocity of a star in your frame of reference is the apparent velocity, and relativity will not change it. What time dilation would change is the apparent rate at which a clock moving with the ...


5

The popular description of Hawking radiation with one a particle from a virtual pair falling in and the other escaping is just a pretty picture, "in another model, the process is a quantum tunneling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon." In fact, one does not even need the first ...


4

General relativity is a classical theory. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply to it. The research frontier in physics now exists in quantizing gravity and unifying it with the other three forces (strong , weak, electromagnetic). Once that is done the solution for the black hole will become a probability distribution and the Heisenberg ...


4

There are two issues. One issue is that some people try to oversell the "no hair" theorem to areas beyond where it applies, they apply a long term analysis of final states as if it applies in the short term. The second issue is that in the shirt term we have two objects, the black hole and the incoming object. We have to think about both. I'll go into ...


3

Assuming dark matter is a WIMP, NASA made a computer simulation on dark matter particle annihilation to see what would happen when dark matter fell into a black hole. According to the article, it may produce gamma ray as the collisions of dark matter particles increase closer to the black hole. Here is the preprint for the NASA simulation: ...


3

Matter in the accretion disk is not (yet) inside the black hole. It is orbiting, and it can even escape. In fact, some of it must escape for accretion to happen at all: The disk has too much angular momentum to be accreted, and so some material must be ejected, carrying off excess angular momentum, in order for the rest to fall into the hole. The general ...


3

This problem is dealt with (in the context of classical General Relativity) nicely in Taylor & Wheeler's book "Exploring black holes: An introduction to General Relativity" (2000, Addison, Wesley, Longman). In the section entitled "Project B: Inside the black hole" they perform a calculation for a free-falling observer, based on the Schwarzschild metric ...


3

The black hole event horizon is not a thing i.e. not a physical object. It is just a surface in spacetime from which light can never escape to infinity. Also, if we take the Schwarzschild description of a (non-rotating) black hole then it is a point mass hidden away behind the event horizon. You can't spaghettify a point mass. When two black holes merge, ...


3

The Schwarzschild radius $r$ is not simply the distance to the centre of the black hole. If you measured that distance by letting down a tape measure you'd find the distance was substantially greater than $r$. See for example my answer to How much extra distance to an event horizon?, where I do this calculation. We actually define $r$ to be the ...


3

A particle cannot survive in region II indefinitely. Indeed, there does exist an upper bound on the survival time of the particle. As soon as the particle crosses the horizon into region II, its remaining proper time until it reaches $r=0$ is bounded by $$\tau_\mathrm{max}=\frac{\pi GM}{c^3}$$ We shall now show this. Since Schwarzschild spacetime possesses ...


3

Actually in most cases you don't see the event horizon, but instead the photon sphere. For example if you are looking from some distance, if light emitted from some star goes inside the photon sphere (where light can travel theoretically in circular orbit, though the orbit is unstable), which is located outside the event horizon, it is more or less doomed to ...


3

General relativity (GR) turned out to be a great mathematically beautiful theory with amazingly accurate experimental predictions/observations (e.g, bending of light, precession of Mercury, etc). This theory naturally provides some simple solutions which are called black holes. In that sense one should take them seriously as they come from a firmly ...


2

Taking this as a matter of Fermi estimation, I will take the Newtonian form of gravity. No, this isn't great accuracy, but if anyone has any severe theoretical issues to raise, I will be glad to hear them. I will assume that your body extends 1 m out from its center of mass and that the extremities there will experience 10 g before your fingernails bleed and ...


2

Nobody knows for sure. If you take a look at the mathspages Formation and Growth of Black Holes you can read about two different interpretations of general relativity: "Historically the two most common conceptual models for general relativity have been the "geometric interpretation" (as originially conceived by Einstein) and the "field interpretation" ...


2

Lots of questions here, I can answer a few of them. The question might sound very easy - Hawking radiation, however I was pondering that as you get closer and closer to a black hole, time dilates exponentially where the surface of the black hole is "timeless". So how can anything even anti-matter destroy a black hole if it cannot touch the ...


2

Calculating what you would see as you fell into a black hole is straightforward but tedious. Fortunately there are lots of sites that have done this for you. Actually, if you've been to the cinema recently the film Interstellar does a pretty good job of it. Less spectacularly, have a look at this site that has videos of what the journey would look like. ...


2

It doesn't just rotate around the accretion disk. As to what actually happens to it isn't clear-cut. Most people will say the infalling matter goes right through the event horizon all the way to the central point-singularity in finite proper time. But check out The Formation and Growth of Black Holes on mathspages: "Historically the two most common ...


2

If black holes have mass but no size, does that imply zero uncertainty in position? If so, what does that imply for uncertainty in momentum? I mean to say that the particles which were originally separate have theoretically come to occupy the same point in space. Does the uncertainty principle apply to this phenomenon? Zero size doesn't ...


2

In $4\times10^9$yr, M31 and MW (Milky Way) will have merged to form an elliptical galaxy. The internal spiral structures of either progenitor and their bars will be destroyed in the process, leaving a smooth ellipsoidal distribution of stars. The supermassive black holes (SMBHs; note that the one in M31 is $\sim100$ times more massive than that in MW) will ...


2

A non-rotating black hole can be treated as spherically symmetric using the Schwarzschild metric. A rotating black hole has an axis of symmetry and can be represented with the Kerr metric. Treatments of black holes using either of these would make the assumption that the "test particle" you are considering does not influence the metric (is much less ...


1

An electron does not spin! Its intrinsic angular momentum (the so called spin), should not be confused with the point-like electron rotating in configuration space (then the gyromagnetic factor would be one which is in a way related to charge spinning in configuration space. Actually the gyromagnetic factor of the electron spin is approximately 2.) A black ...


1

As the comment above says, the word "spin" should not be taken literally, as in the spin of a beachball. The word spin came about as an attempt to physically understand the differing energy levels an electron can have, due to the magnetic field associated with it. The idea behind it goes back to when the electron was discovered experimentally to have a ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible