## Are Galaxies Wormholes?

Posts: 4250
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

I see where you are coming from. Let me put it in a different way of understanding. No matter how big the sun is, as long as it has the same mass nothing should chance? Good point....I'll get back to you after I'v had time to think..
A black-hole is not a hole it's a sphere. As will be the universe when compressed into the smallest unit it can be.

Posts: 4250
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

Ok I've given it some thought and I think I'v got a a reasonable answer. Before the the sun turns into a black hole it turns into a red giant. Then collapses back into it's self and contract down to form a black hole. In the process it absorbs all the planets/mass closes to it. Which increases it's mass there by allowing it to exert a greater gravitational pull on any matter that is within it's area of influence.
A black-hole is not a hole it's a sphere. As will be the universe when compressed into the smallest unit it can be.

Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:34 pm

Toxic32 wrote:Ok I've given it some thought and I think I'v got a a reasonable answer. Before the the sun turns into a black hole it turns into a red giant. Then collapses back into it's self and contract down to form a black hole. In the process it absorbs all the planets/mass closes to it. Which increases it's mass there by allowing it to exert a greater gravitational pull on any matter that is within it's area of influence.

That would happen. And it's the friction of the sun's corona that would cause the earth's orbit to decay.

Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:52 am

This is a pet subject of mine: gravity & the incorporation into quantum mechanics

Getting back to topic: Since the sun dosen't have the mass to colapse, I thought we were talking if the sun was hypothetically compressed to a BH? How can we have a red giant without the mass???? There's a slight pretense in your thinking....

Hmmm. What you's peeps know of virtual particles?
In the vacuum of space particle and antiparticles are continuously 'created' and 'Anti-created' randomly (usually these are just classed as virtual particles as they don't really interact with anything and can't usually be detected or measured). However if a virtual particle pair are created just outside of the BH's event horizon then it's possible that one of them falls into the black hole (before they can rejoin/pair, & self annihilate), thus gaining mass. The particle that is left can then fly off into space as a real particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Also depending on the revolutions of the BH, will affect the 'evaperation' of the black hole (so it could get smaller too). And given the lack of size/mass of our hypothetical black hole (very small indeed), it would disapate/reduce in size faster than a big (or a super massive) black hole.

Hey trolls.... If you want to rip me a new one, You better have a sharp set of nails.
▲Not an invitation peeps..... It's a warning.

Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:34 pm

I2haveseen wrote:This is a pet subject of mine: gravity & the incorporation into quantum mechanics

Getting back to topic: Since the sun dosen't have the mass to colapse, I thought we were talking if the sun was hypothetically compressed to a BH? How can we have a red giant without the mass???? There's a slight pretense in your thinking....

Hmmm. What you's peeps know of virtual particles?
In the vacuum of space particle and antiparticles are continuously 'created' and 'Anti-created' randomly (usually these are just classed as virtual particles as they don't really interact with anything and can't usually be detected or measured). However if a virtual particle pair are created just outside of the BH's event horizon then it's possible that one of them falls into the black hole (before they can rejoin/pair, & self annihilate), thus gaining mass. The particle that is left can then fly off into space as a real particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Also depending on the revolutions of the BH, will affect the 'evaperation' of the black hole (so it could get smaller too). And given the lack of size/mass of our hypothetical black hole (very small indeed), it would disapate/reduce in size faster than a big (or a super massive) black hole.

Seconded.

Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:52 am

Cia212 wrote:
I2haveseen wrote:This is a pet subject of mine: gravity & the incorporation into quantum mechanics

Getting back to topic: Since the sun dosen't have the mass to colapse, I thought we were talking if the sun was hypothetically compressed to a BH? How can we have a red giant without the mass???? There's a slight pretense in your thinking....

Hmmm. What you's peeps know of virtual particles?
In the vacuum of space particle and antiparticles are continuously 'created' and 'Anti-created' randomly (usually these are just classed as virtual particles as they don't really interact with anything and can't usually be detected or measured). However if a virtual particle pair are created just outside of the BH's event horizon then it's possible that one of them falls into the black hole (before they can rejoin/pair, & self annihilate), thus gaining mass. The particle that is left can then fly off into space as a real particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Also depending on the revolutions of the BH, will affect the 'evaperation' of the black hole (so it could get smaller too). And given the lack of size/mass of our hypothetical black hole (very small indeed), it would disapate/reduce in size faster than a big (or a super massive) black hole.

Seconded.

Also (for clarity):
The gravitational pull of the Sun, a black hole, (or anything else for that matter) depends only on its mass (not density) & distance from us (or any another thing with mass). So even if the Sun were compressed to become a BH, it would pull only as hard on Earth as it does now. Earth would not be pulled inside if the sun were compressed to become a black hole. The mass (and the centre of it's mass) remain unchanged.

Our compressed sun would be less than 6 kms (well under 4 miles) diameter (d), compared to the 1391000 kms (864327 miles) d of the uncompressed sun.

In theory, any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed (the smallest mass for a black hole is thus approximately the 'planck mass') into a space that fits within its corresponding 'Schworzschild radius' (like mentioned: For our sun, this d roughly 6 kms). IGR J17091 is a stellar mass black hole with a mass between 3-10 solar masses. It is a binary system in which a star orbits the black hole. It is the smallest black hole discovered and is near the minimum size limit for a black hole to remain stable.

Other lines of thought:
Polar jets: Generated from the dynamic interactions within an accretion disc (ie: mass that is swirling arround the outside of the event horision, inward bound), of a BH. Wouldn't want one of these cosmic death rays pointed our way ............

Speaking of (actually I was thinking of) magnetics (as a 'property' of the sun), what about the interplanetary magnetic field (IPMF)? Or rather, the loss of it? The IPMF is driven by (you guessed it)....... The sun.

While we're on properties, do you know what properties a BH cariies? Mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. It dose not have a magnetic field ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_th ... ence_frame ) of it's own (the accretion disc arround a BH dose though (ie: see polar jets above (iie: It's a direct result of the dynamic interactions in the accretion disc))).

Then you got variance in gravity distrubution (sun Vs BH) due to rotation of sun causeing an 'equatorial bulge' (oblateness). & Oblateness would cause planetry orbits to change:
The standard analysis of orbiting bodies assumes that all bodies consist of uniform spheres, or more generally, concentric shells each of uniform density. It can be shown that such bodies are gravitationally equivalent to point sources.
However, in the real world, many bodies rotate, and this introduces oblateness and distorts the gravity field, and gives a quadrupole moment to the gravitational field which is significant at distances comparable to the radius of the body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#Oblateness

So, the planets orbits would change slightly (ie: axial precession). A one solar mass black hole would have the exact same gravity as the Sun ... if the Sun was perfectly round and of uniform density. The Sun however is slightly oblate, so it's gravitational field would be slightly distorted compared to the precision (how that much mass, can be stacked in such a small amount of space, causeing space/time 'as we know it' to 'cease to exist', is still way beyond our known phycics ) of black holes singularity. As the oblateness of our sun dose vary in orbital parameters over time ( http://www1.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem ... e_sun.html ). IMHO, the sudden comprestion of the Sun into a black hole, would would be quite small, but I believe they'd be measurable. And given enough time, a more stable solar sytem (planetary Orbital periods (ie: precession/axial precession) would be the result.

Effects On Time: This is where my maths lets me down (Been trying, giveing up (over it now), just going to do 'guessTAmates' ) a bit . Still, I'm sure it would play a part, albeit small.
Basics: Time goes slower as you approach a gravity singularity. & Time stops after having passed the event horizon of a singularity. That means we'd have higher 'local time distortion' as the axial precession leveled out. Like I said, small, but detectable.

No more day time. Just a lot darker, 24 hr nights (no sun to reflect light from the moon/planets/ect). Just stars. We would probably however be able to 'see' the gravitational lenssing effect of our new BH. Because we 'now' orbit a BH, the light (from stars in our line of sight) behind the BH, might be (alignment & distance dependant) bent arround the BH. This would have the 'visual effect' of a star spliting into two, before reforming.

Now the big one: Reguardless, We're doomed.....
NO SUN = NO LIGHT/RADIATION (NLR)
NLR = DEATH TO ALL LIFE (in a very short time, Earth would freeze in the absence of heat & light. Maybe a few genomes (bacteria/microbes/ect) might survive till the earths core cooled)

lol That's if we survive the shock wave generated from the " supernova 'remnant' " (Yes I know we're talking about our sun & it's mass (ie not enough mass to go supernova), however I believe any mass (that wouldn't implode in nature (ie: not enough mass)) that was manually compessed to a BH, would still have a 'remnant' and a corisponding shock wave (look at what CERN produces (Below image from one 'proton to proton' collision) from making 'not quite' BH's ..........

..............Yet

Hey trolls.... If you want to rip me a new one, You better have a sharp set of nails.
▲Not an invitation peeps..... It's a warning.

Posts: 4250
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:50 pm
Location: 2 Thirds Down The Bottle

Looks like you have put some time into answering this question. Needless to say I'v just woken up after a night on the tiles. And to respond to your post I will need to get with the program a bit more.

We are talking about invariant mass aren't we. which can be destroyed and created that can be seen in the annihilation of a low energy and high energy electron-poistron pair (equation 1 is an annihilation of a low-energy pair whereas 2 and 3 are high energy pairs).

1) e+e- â†’ Î³Î³

2) e+e- â†’ uÃ» (Ï€Â°) *

3) e+e- â†’ Î¼+Î¼-

*I couldn't find the correct ascii symbols for antiquarks

As long as we understand that invariant mass is essientially 'mass-energy' and can be converted back and forth between other sorts of energy.

I get back to you when my brain kicks in.
A black-hole is not a hole it's a sphere. As will be the universe when compressed into the smallest unit it can be.

Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:47 am

I personally don't believe in black holes since you can't see them and can only observe the huge plasma jets supposedly made by the black holes "accretion disc"

Live by the Terror, Die by the Terror.

Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:52 am

lol Give you half points on my anwser taking some thought. Most of it just flowed (checked a few things though). But because I'm an info junky, went on many tangents while writeing my previous post

I think you need to do a 180 on that 'invariant mass' (as you put it) thought line Bro. I'm talking about magnetic reconnection 'not happening' because the BH takes it (ie: Nothing left to reconect the field lines). The 'Rest mass' (as I learn't it, but the exact same thing) of an object, refers to properties that don't change when a 'transformation' of said object takes place.
Invariant mass:
The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. In the center of momentum frame, the invariant mass of a system is simply the total energy divided by the speed of light squared. In other reference frames, the energy of the system increases, but system momentum is subtracted from this, so that the invariant mass remains unchanged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

Rest mass:
The physical mass of a body when it is regarded as being at rest.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rest+mass

Plus like I said:
lol That's if we survive the shock wave generated from the " supernova 'remnant' " (Yes I know we're talking about our sun & it's mass (ie not enough mass to go supernova), however I believe any mass (that wouldn't implode in nature (ie: not enough mass)) that was manually compessed to a BH, would still have a 'remnant' and a corisponding shock wave (look at what CERN produces (Below image from one 'proton to proton' collision) from making 'not quite' BH's ..........

So, If the "no hair" conjecturer is correct, then a BH cannot have a intrinsic magnetic field because its Mag. field is determined only by its angular momenntum and its overall charge (which is expected to be very small (else it neutralized itserlf (ie: Selectively attracting oppositely charged particles of the )). The Mag field is effectively created when the black hole collapses and remains in existence afterwards (ie: The 'AC Disc' being rotated at massive velosity (see vid already posted)).

Where as on the polar opppisate, neutron stars can (&do) have a magnetic field many orders of magnitude larger, effectively created by circulating currents flowing within the 'neutral matter'. Currents can NOT flow within a black hole.

There are theories that if a neutron star collapses to a black hole, then the "fossilized" remains of the previous magnetic field could remain trapped near the event horizon. This might provide an explanation for observations which apparently suggest a strong intrinsic magnetic moment in the central body of a quasar, in particular Q0957+561.

Also the MECO (Mag. Eternally Ciollapsing Object) theory. This postulates that the object does not actually collapse because of radiation pressure, so it is not subject to the "no hair" rule.

Again (general consensuss): The mag. field of a BH, is generated outside the event horizon. Not saying it's not compensating for the loss of the Orig. Mag. field (ie: Said compensating keeps the 'system' in equlibrium). IDK (lol knowone knows) what going on inside a BH?????? All speculation from that point (i like the idea that a white hole (WH) is at the other end of a BH..... IDK???? Something intrinsic about that possabillity to me on.
Hey trolls.... If you want to rip me a new one, You better have a sharp set of nails.
▲Not an invitation peeps..... It's a warning.

Previous

• Related topics
Replies
Views
Last post