New knowledge about the remarkable properties of black holes

Dec 11, 2012
In theoretical physics you can have different planes that behave like black holes and they are called black branes. When black branes are folded into multiple dimensions they form a 'blackfold', which new research shows has a relationship between gravity and fluid mechanics and solid-state physics. Credit: Credit: Artist impression by Merete Rasmussen

Black holes are surrounded by many mysteries, but now researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, have come up with new groundbreaking theories that can explain several of their properties. The research shows that black holes have properties that resemble the dynamics of both solids and liquids. The results are published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review Letters.

Black holes are extremely compact objects in the universe. They are so compact that they generate an incredibly strong and everything that comes near them is swallowed up. Not even light can escape, so light that hits a black hole will not be reflected, but will be entirely absorbed, as a result, they cannot be seen and we call them black holes.

"But black holes are not completely black, because we know that they emit and there are indications that the radiation is thermal, i.e. it has a temperature," explains Niels Obers, a professor of theoretical particle physics and cosmology at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

Multiple dimensions

Researchers know that the black holes are very compact, but they do not know what their are. Niels Obers works with theoretical modelling to better understand the physics of black holes. He explains that you can look at a black hole like a particle. A particle has in principle no dimensions. It is a point. If you give a particle an extra dimension, it becomes a string. If you give the string an extra dimension, it becomes a plane. call such a plane a 'brane' (the word 'brane' is related to 'membrane' from the ).

"In , you can have different branes, including planes that behave like black holes, which we call black branes. The black branes are thermal, that is to say, they have a temperature and are dynamical objects. When black branes are folded into multiple dimensions, they form a 'blackfold'," explains Niels Obers, who worked out this new way of looking at black branes with associate professor in theoretical physics at the Niels Bohr Institute, Troels Harmark, back in 2009.

New breakthrough

Niels Obers and his two doctoral students Jay Armas and Jakob Gath have now made a new breakthrough in the description of the physics of black holes based on the theories of the black branes and blackfolds,

"The black branes are hydro-dynamic objects, that is to say that they have the of a liquid. We have now discovered that black branes also have properties, which can be explained in terms of solids. They can behave like elastic material when we bend them," explains Jay Armas.

He explains that when the black branes are bent and folded into a blackfold, a so-called piezoelectric effect (electricity that occurs due to pressure) is created. This new effect can be understood as a slightly bent and charged black string with a greater concentration of electric charge on the innermost side in relation to the outermost side. This produces two electrically charged poles on the black strings. are predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. This means that there is a very surprising relationship between gravity and fluid mechanics and solid-state physics.

"With these new theories, we expect to be able to explain other black hole phenomena, and we expect to be able to better understand the physical properties of neutron stars. We also expect to gain a greater understanding of the so-called particle theories, which are, for example, relevant for understanding the quark-gluon-plasma in the primordial ," explains Niels Obers.

Explore further: Image: Galactic wheel of life shines in infrared

More information: prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i24/e241101

Related Stories

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

New website dedicated to discussion of string theory

Oct 03, 2012

(Phys.org)—Look hard enough, string theory says, and at a scale so small that atoms loom as large as entire continents do to us you would see that every particle in the universe is just the product of vibrating ...

Black hole jets

Jan 16, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational clutches. Massive black holes (equal to millions or even ...

Could primordial black holes be dark matter?

Sep 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- “We know that about 25% of the matter in the universe is dark matter, but we don’t know what it is,” Michael Kesden tells PhysOrg.com. “There are a number of different theories about what da ...

Recommended for you

Image: Galactic wheel of life shines in infrared

Oct 24, 2014

It might look like a spoked wheel or even a "Chakram" weapon wielded by warriors like "Xena," from the fictional TV show, but this ringed galaxy is actually a vast place of stellar life. A newly released ...

New window on the early Universe

Oct 22, 2014

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (22) Dec 11, 2012
Black holes are predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. This means that there is a very surprising relationship between gravity and fluid mechanics and solid-state physics.


Those are false statements.

Black Holes were theorized before Einstein was even born.

Black holes are predicted by Newton's Gravity, and the Schwartzchild Radius of a Black Hole is predicted using a Newtonian formula. The only addition was that the Schwartzchild radius adds the speed of light postulate to assume Ve equals c.

Just got finished explaining this on physforum as well.

If you start with a false premise you end with a false result.

All black holes are Newtonian first, and nobody has ever proven otherwise. Whether or not they have relativistic effects on matter around them is irrelevant to the question of the physics that causes the black hole.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2012
Interesting approach, although I had thought string theory as viable as EU for predicting the rest of the universe. Of course everything past the event horizon is still speculation, I did find this intriguing:

"This new effect can be understood as a slightly bent and charged black string with a greater concentration of electric charge on the innermost side in relation to the outermost side. This produces two electrically charged poles on the black strings."

If the theory has validity this could be the first evidence of connectivity between events across the event horizon, IF the particle jets aligned with these poles.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (26) Dec 11, 2012
You are just as wrong over here as on the forums. Newtonian gravity is premised on absolute space and absolute time. It is only applicable to matter in less than relativistic dynamics. Newtonian gravitation does not predict black holes, the numbers won't get you there.

The article didn't say that Einstein predicted black holes... His theory of General Relativity predicts it. It was the first model of gravity where the creation of black holes where a natural consequence of the model.

Predictions to scientists are not the same as "predictions" of, say, a palm reader. In the world of science, models predict, not scientists.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2012
If the theory has validity this could be the first evidence of connectivity between events across the event horizon, IF the particle jets aligned with these poles.


It is an interesting theory indeed. One that may allow subjecting to verification of ideas that have been previously thought to be untestable.
Lurker2358
1.2 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2012
The article didn't say that Einstein predicted black holes... His theory of General Relativity predicts it. It was the first model of gravity where the creation of black holes where a natural consequence of the model.


That's absolutely not true.

The Schwarzchild Radius is nothing more than the radius where Newtonian Escape Velocity equals "c". There is nothing relativistic required at all.

Properly applied, Newtonian Gravitational Acceleration is already sufficient to explain a black hole, it must be because the Schwarzchild radius is determined by the same original formula.

Newtonican Escape Velocity and the Schwarzchild Radius formula are IDENTICAL when Ve equals c.

the only difference is actually in which variable you put on the left side, for God's sake.

Ve equal sqrt(2GM/r)

r equal 2GM/((Ve)^2)

r equal 2GM/(c^2)

It's the same damned thing.

The guy should have been flogged for plagiarism.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2012
Black holes are predicted by Newton's Gravity


Not really. That was proposed, but it would require photons to have mass/inertia, which they apparently do not. Light doesn't behave by the rules of newtonian physics. If it did, you would see light slow down as it leaves a star, but it does not.

and the Schwartzchild Radius of a Black Hole is predicted using a Newtonian formula


That's not quite right either. Newtonian equations do not put a limit on the speed of light, so they predict a mass/density situation where it is possible that an object falling from infinite height should reach and then exceede the speed of light. Though, once again, it's not really the Swarzchild limit becauce only massive objects are governed by Newtonian gravity.
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (21) Dec 11, 2012
All black holes are Newtonian first, and nobody has ever proven otherwise


Gravitational lensing does not happen with Newtonian physics. We have observed gravitational lensing around galaxy clusters. That proves Newtonian physics is actually wrong; it just happens to be a good enough approximation that you can use it for simple things.

Any attempt to fit the behavior of light into Newtonian physics leads to unrealistic consequences that can easily be discounted by observation. There's no such thing as a "black hole" in Newtonian physics, and there's no limit to the speed of light either. The difference between Newtonian and GR is when you get to zero mass and/or the speed of light. Since Newton's laws don't predict what we see, they are NOT the same thing.

Where do you come up with your crazy stuff? Is there a web site or are you in some secret club or something? Do you have meetings in a clubhouse? Do you have cookies?
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (18) Dec 11, 2012
It's the same damned thing.

The guy should have been flogged for plagiarism.


No it's not the same thing at all. It requires the incorporation of mass increase with velocity increase (to relativistic magnitudes) with the subsequent warping of spacetime to model black hole formation. Newton's gravitation won't get you there. To Newton, space was absolute,,,, To Newton, time was absolute.

Many people pondered whether a great enough mass might do weird things. But to model black holes required the field equations first posited by Einstein. Newton's equations are SIMILAR to Einstein's but they can't model a black hole. Newton was not even convinced that gravity and light operated at a finite speed.

And they (Newton's & Einstein's)are only similar superficially, in their most simple form.
Parsec
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
You are just as wrong over here as on the forums. Newtonian gravity is premised on absolute space and absolute time. It is only applicable to matter in less than relativistic dynamics. Newtonian gravitation does not predict black holes, the numbers won't get you there.

The article didn't say that Einstein predicted black holes... His theory of General Relativity predicts it. It was the first model of gravity where the creation of black holes where a natural consequence of the model.

Predictions to scientists are not the same as "predictions" of, say, a palm reader. In the world of science, models predict, not scientists.

Actually, just take the escape velocity predicted by Newtons classical formula, assume any radius, and substitute 'c' for the velocity. This gives you the mass of an object of the given radius which will trap light, i.e. a black hole. Simple.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2012
The Schwarzchild Radius is nothing more than the radius where Newtonian Escape Velocity equals "c". There is nothing relativistic required at all.


Sorry, this is wrong. The Schwarzchild Radius is a relativistic equation of the gravitational field around a point. It could not exist in Newtonian gravitational equations because Newtonian equations do not constrain light to a finite speed.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2012
Newton's gravity does NOT require a "subject" to have mass.

Nobody realizes this, hell maybe Newton didn't even realize it, but the equation implies no such thing.

This is Newton's Gravity acceleration formula.

Ag equal GM/(r^2).

The second "object" need not have mass at all, it's neither implied nor required by the mathematics of the formula.

Acceleration, "Ag," could be acting on anything, massive or non-massive. The formula does not imply mass in the second object, and actually specifically implies that the mass of the second object does not affect the outcome, else "little m" would have been in the equation for Acceleration. It is not.

Newton's acceleration formula predicts gravity would accelerate all entities, massive or not.

If you actually test the equation PROPERLY, it DOES predict black hole characteristics, and it does predict photons being redirected by stars and black holes, and it does predict certain other temporal warps...see below...
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2012
Sorry, this is wrong. The Schwarzchild Radius is a relativistic equation of the gravitational field around a point. It could not exist in Newtonian gravitational equations because Newtonian equations do not constrain light to a finite speed.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Newton even recognized light probably had a finite speed. He did not, however, postulate a "constant" speed, as in Relativity.

And look up "Black Hole" on wikipedia, idiot. It will tell you the same thing I said, which is that the theory of Black Holes pre-dates Einstein and Relativity.

It couldn't be a relativistic concept if it predates relativity. Don't be ridiculous.

A "constant" speed of light is not required to have black holes. It just makes it easier to have black holes.

Another issue is Newton was inventing a new framework of science. He could not have possibly recognized every single consequence of the equations he was attempting to write, just as Einstein did not.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2012
So again, if you have the Newtonian Acceleration formula:

Ag equal GM/(r^2)

What you find is the mass of the second object does not matter. The second object is accelerated in exactly the same way whether it's massless, or 1 sub-atomic particle, or one gram of matter, or one stellar mass of matter. It's mass, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

So then whether Newton realized it or not, the equation implies light is warped (re-directed) in the direction of mass...along with all other entities, be they massive or not.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2012
In short, the existence of black holes neither confirms nor debunks General Relativity, because Black Holes were already a consequence of Newtonian Gravity, whether or not anybody actually realized that, but at least two people did realize it!!

If they did not realize that, then shame on them.

It's freaking obvious that the Schwarzchild Radius formula is a rip-off of the escape velocity formula, which is derived from Newton, as Parsec also agreed with me (or rather just pointed it out as well.)
Ophelia
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
@lurker
Black holes are predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity. This means that there is a very surprising relationship between gravity and fluid mechanics and solid-state physics.


Those are false statements.""


Without getting into the rest of your nonsense, please note that the sentence you quoted did NOT state "first predicted". So, even if you are correct about everything else in your diatribe, the first sentence you quoted is NOT false. You are.

And you didn't even bother refuting the second sentence with anything, even though you also said it was false.

Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2012
Gravitational lensing does not happen with Newtonian physics. We have observed gravitational lensing around galaxy clusters. That proves Newtonian physics is actually wrong; it just happens to be a good enough approximation that you can use it for simple things.


I disagree. Now I hadn't made the full explanation, but look again, very closely.

Ag equal GM/(r^2).

This would cause gravitational lensing if properly calculated, i.e. applied to all "entities" whether massive or not, whether particle or not.

Further, it is already in a form similar to optics (such as lensing) because both light and gravity obey inverse squared laws.

Newtonian Gravity of individual objects produces a spherical relationship, that is, a surface projected into the third dimension according to the formula of a sphere, which is how it was derived.

This might not be obvious to people who are so used to quoting others they've forgotten to think for themselves, but for me it is quite obvious.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2012
@lurker
So, even if you are correct about everything else in your diatribe, the first sentence you quoted is NOT false. You are.

And you didn't even bother refuting the second sentence with anything, even though you also said it was false.


I clarified your first point a few posts ago.

Fair enough, we can more correctly edit what I said above to be "Relativity is not the first to predict black holes."

However, that observation highlights the point I made a few posts ago, which is Black Holes neither confirm nor refute General Relativity nor Special Relativity.

To the second point, it's a bit axiomatic because I don't necessarily claim that "all" of Relativity is flawed, only that "something" is flawed about it, given certain absurdities that I've pointed out elsewhere.

This scientist and his team is going on about postulating black strings and black branes (a concept Hawking and Pickover among others already discussed in different terminology) ...see below...
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 11, 2012
...okay, so his black strings and black branes can't be observed or tested.

My my, it must be amazing to be the lead researcher in a field that can't be observed or tested. "The results are always positive!! Send us more money!!"

Anyway, Hawking and other black hole theorists already discussed "shaped" singularities. This is nothing new, except this guy is "hiding" the shape inside another black hole, so you can't even investigate it...which is bullshit...
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 11, 2012
If you want to see why Newton's gravity equation already warps light, whether or not the speed of light is a "constant". (we think it is, but there may be conditions we've never thought of to test under which it may not be constant, etc.)

Start by considering a spherical glass lens in classical optics. The glass warps light as the light tries to pass through it, due really to individual EM fields of the atoms and such.

Newton's gravity is the same way, because it is a spherical entity, and if properly calculated, we would expect Newton's Gravity to produce a lens effect on distant light sources when viewed so that their light pass near massive objects.

The lensing would occur whether or not the speed of light is constant. The only thing constancy of the speed of light changes is the passage of time, which would have been discovered anyway eventually, but does not invalidate Newton's acceleration formula at all.

I did not say it was easy to visualize. see below...
drel
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
Where do you come up with your crazy stuff? Is there a web site or are you in some secret club or something? Do you have meetings in a clubhouse? Do you have cookies?
And look up "Black Hole" on wikipedia, idiot.


I always go to wikipedia when I want indisputable evidence to support my claims. They can't put it on the internet if it's not true!
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 11, 2012
The reason Einstein's equation appears to predict the precession of Mercury and the bending of star light more accurately than Newton's is because nobody even calculated the propagation of the star light using Newton's formula! They simply incorrectly assumed a straight line along the light's "initial trajectory" which the pure mathematics of Newton's formula DOES NOT ALLOW.

again:

Ag equal GM/(r^2).

Does not allow a "photon, wave, or other ray concept," of star light to move in a straight line past the sun!!

Whatever the light is, the Newtonian equation already predicts it must be deflected towards the Sun, and curved around it.

Whenever I described the mathematics to do the REAL temporal partitioned calculation as a limit, I realized no human being in Einstein's era ever actually did that calculation by hand.

My prediction is that Newton's formula, if applied as above, will actually make a closer prediction than Einstein's...
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2012
I always go to wikipedia when I want indisputable evidence to support my claims. They can't put it on the internet if it's not true!


It's mentioned in other physics books and papers as well.

You're just poisoning the well now. I used wikipedia because it was convenient, nothing more.

"They can't put anything in a text book or a scientific paper that's not true either." Ya dumbass.

Try this:

"One of the many implications of Newton's gravitational theory almost inevitably led to the basic concept of what are today called black holes...

...The first mention of dark stars [i.e., black holes] was made in a paper by Michell read to the Royal Society … in 1783."

Read more: http://www.scienc...Em7y0wIO

That's 122 years before Special Relativity or General Relativity. Einstein's Great Grand-daddy was still in diapers, if he was even alive yet.
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 11, 2012
That led Michell to ponder just how high a star's escape velocity could reach. And taking this line of reasoning to its logical extreme, he wondered what might happen if the star's escape velocity exceeded the speed of light—186,000 miles per second. In that case, he reasoned, even light could not escape the star. In a paper published in 1784, he wrote: "If there should really exist in nature any bodies whose … diameters are more than 500 times the diameter of the sun," they would have enormous gravities and escape velocities. Thus, "all light emitted from such a body would be made to return to it by its own power of gravity." And because the light cannot leave the star, "we could have no information from sight." 9 In other words, the star would be dark and therefore invisible to human eyes and telescopes. Appropriately, Michell called these objects "dark stars."
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2012
In Michell's case, he seems to have explored only objects with "ordinary" density, and so came up with sizes and masses much larger than the formula necessarily requires.

He could have just as well left mass invariant, and explored smaller radii.

In any case, I am absolutely, 100% correct, as usual, and it is my detractors who haven't the slightest clue WTF they're talking about.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
I could see Lurker having a point for a static BH...
Spin is pretty important....

Regardless of the equation, gravity and mass are irrevocably tied together. Name one example of a massless object. (don't say a photon at rest please)
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
So let's say it slowly, students.

"Almost everyone in the field of physics is chasing their own tail, primarily because they NEVER EVEN UNDERSTOOD NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS, and they are mixing up fairy tale issues that never actually existed!!"

Hey, that was a citation from a paper written 122 years before Einstein's relativity, and it PREDICTS LIGHT BEING WARPED UPON ITSELF BY NEWTON'S GRAVITY.

The fact it was not calculated by the astronomers then or now is not my fault.

The clear evidence shows that Newton's Gravity was in fact meant to be interpreted this way,which means it does in fact predict the warping of light around stars, as well as the existence of black holes, WITHOUT need for referencing any of Einstein's work.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2012
And look up "Black Hole" on wikipedia, idiot. It will tell you the same thing I said, which is that the theory of Black Holes pre-dates Einstein and Relativity.


I didn't argue that, a-hole. Take a breath, you're going to have a heart attack.
Lurker2358
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
I could see Lurker having a point for a static BH...
Spin is pretty important....


It can be predicted without Einstein, when the equation is properly understood.

Regardless of the equation, gravity and mass are irrevocably tied together.


yes, but gravity does not actually "work" on the mass of the target object. It simply accelerates it by the same rate regardless of that objects' mass. The Earth would fell the same acceleration from the Sun regardless of Earth's mass.

Name one example of a massless object. (don't say a photon at rest please)


Some say photons are "massless" even though they carry energy. This is where the confusion lies.

The mass or lack thereof of object B is irrelevant to whether that object is attracted to object A.

Newton's formula actually says object B will be attracted to object A whether or not B has mass, and regardless of how fast B is moving.

Michell clearly interpreted this the same way.
Ojorf
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2012
I can say wrong more times than you!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2012
Newton's formula actually says object B will be attracted to object A whether or not B has mass, and regardless of how fast B is moving.


You should have taken a breath or two and composed yourself. Newton said no such thing. Newton was computing for TWO bodies, and Newton expected that both bodies have MASS.

In your over simplification of the "physics" of it, you fail to understand that the in Newton's equation, the mass of the minor body is left out not because it is not part of the equation. It is left out merely because in most situations the minor body's mass is many order of magnitudes less and won't effect the results.

The mechanism and physics that allows a body to become a black hole is dependent on more than just the simple mass of the body. It is the confining of that mass to a constrained volume.

Michell pondered, and wondered, he didn't present any model of how. He couldn't, the science wasn't available for another 122 years. He WAS an aetherist, ya know.

Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
In your over simplification of the "physics" of it, you fail to understand that the in Newton's equation, the mass of the minor body is left out not because it is not part of the equation. It is left out merely because in most situations the minor body's mass is many order of magnitudes less and won't effect the results.


That's actually not correct. It's left out of the acceleration formula because it does not matter. It appears in the Force formula as a means to reconcile the notion of Force in the correct units and scale (F equal mA, etc,).

The mechanism and physics that allows a body to become a black hole is dependent on more than just the simple mass of the body. It is the confining of that mass to a constrained volume.


Gravity confines mass, silly.

Michell pondered, and wondered, he didn't present any model of how. He couldn't, the science wasn't available for another 122 years. He WAS an aetherist, ya know.


Description given is correct anyway, silly.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
silly.


Silly indeedy-roo. Silly little pretender who learns a three variable formula and thinks he knows as much and more than the big boys.

If you learned only from the popular press, meant for lay readers, you should confine your judgements to only popular, lay writers. Otherwise you come across as a petulant little child playing grown up.

It's never as simple as a simpleton would have you believe.

How's that for silly?
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
Michell pondered, and wondered, he didn't present any model of how. He couldn't, the science wasn't available for another 122 years. He WAS an aetherist, ya know.


Einstein has not presented a model of how either, silly boy.

"Warping of space" doesn't even explain into what space or time is warped, and the only physical models used to explain the equations are self-referencial, such as a rubber sheet experiment.

At least you can visualize Newton's equations without using a self-referencial rubber sheet model.

Anyway, you're clearly wrong.

Michell did the prediction and a calculation of it using only physics he had at the time.

I just did it again using a calculator and the "Schwarzchild radius" calculation, and Michell's calculation of 500 solar diameters is correct to within 13.5% of the same value.

This is probably due to better calculations of something like the gravitational constant or Solar diameter, and has nothing to do with relativity...

You're wrong...
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
It's never as simple as a simpleton would have you believe.

How's that for silly?


Fool.

I never said it was simple.

In fact, the correct calculation for things like the propagation of a photon is very hard to do.

Maybe you're not smart enough to see why.

Maybe you think Michell was a "simpleton" too, ya damn fool.

His calculation was correct to within margin of error of instrumentation.

now how the hell did he do that if Black Hole physics relied on Relativity? Ya damn fool.

It doesn't, and Relativity doesn't change anything. Ya damn fool.

It uses the exact same formula either way, ya damn fool.

You are the one who needs to learn something, starting with some fucking history, and then maybe try the equations.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
"Some say photons are "massless" even though they carry energy. This is where the confusion lies."

No confusion here, they aren't massless when moving, this is why gravity can effect them.


"That's actually not correct. It's left out of the acceleration formula because it does not matter".

No, it's left out because it is not the primary mass, the equation assumes the attracted object has mass, otherwise gravity could not attract it.
lengould100
not rated yet Dec 11, 2012
gluon?
Sean_W
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2012
Is the reason that a piezoelectric effect is predicted in this situation something understandable to a layperson? And is the "black string/brane/fold" being discussed a curvature of space time or is all the compressed matter-energy integral to the folds and piezoelectric effect being produced (beyond being needed to curve space-time to begin with?

Thanks.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2012
That's 122 years before Special Relativity or General Relativity. Einstein's Great Grand-daddy was still in diapers, if he was even alive yet.


Not exactly...

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..." Nikola Tesla
frajo
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2012
There are people who show their love & affection for physics by mentioning a famous physicist without knowing how to spell his name.

His real name was Karl Schwarzschild.

Don't believe Wikipedia, here's another link:
http://www.britan...rzschild
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2012
That's 122 years before Special Relativity or General Relativity. Einstein's Great Grand-daddy was still in diapers, if he was even alive yet.


Not exactly...

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..." Nikola Tesla

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
Maybe you think Michell was a "simpleton" too, ya damn fool.


No, not really really. But neither do I think he set the stage for 20th century physics. Do you really think Newtonian physics is enough? Max Planck was advised not to go into physics, because it was a field with on future, all the good stuff was already known. I suppose you think he wasted his time by not stopping with Newton?

By you reasoning Jules Verne had his original work plagiarized by Rutherford, Pauli and Fermi.

Gregor Mendel had his work plagiarized by Crick & Watson.

H.G. Wells had his work plagiarized by Planck, Lawrence and Ladenburg.

You are the one who needs to learn something, starting with some fucking history, and then maybe try the equations.


My, my, my. Aren't you the smart one.

My facility with the equations is just fine. Good enough to teach calculus based physics. History, I have my strong areas and weak areas.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2012
There are people who show their love & affection for physics by mentioning a famous physicist without knowing how to spell his name.

His real name was Karl Schwarzschild.


Touche'

But, but, but,,, at least he knows his History. (Even if he does mix up Newton's 2nd Law of Motion and Newton's Universal Gravitation.)

Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
the equation assumes the attracted object has mass, otherwise gravity could not attract it.


If that were true, why was Michell writing an scientific paper wherein he discussed "Dark Stars" who's gravity re-directed light?

I quoted the passage from the work. Michell gave the calculation CORRECT to within 13.5% of the real value, with the error being a matter of measurement, not formula or calculation.

How is it that you don't understand that yet?

No, it's left out because it is not the primary mass, the equation assumes the attracted object has mass, otherwise gravity could not attract it.


no, it's left out because it does not matter.

Fg equal GMm/r^2
Ag equal GM/r^2
F equal mA

Fg/m = Ag = GM/r^2

The little "m" cancels in the Force equation, giving the Acceleration equation.

The little m is therefore not in the acceleration equation because it cancels, ergo does not matter.

Michell obviously worked from that same idea, for the size of a Dark Star.
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
It also works the same way in simple mechanical motion, so I know it works the same way in gravity.

F equals mA

If we divide both sides by "m" we get:

F/m equals A

But since Force is given in units:

kg*m/(s^2)

Then the mass,m,(kg) cancels.

pure units:

(kg*m/(s^2))/kg equals m/(s^2)

That is "The units of Force divided by the units of mass equals the units of acceleration."

This explains what happens to the "little m" in the gravity equation.

Apparently you never caught on.

Force equals mass(little m) times acceleration.

Acceleration equals Gravitational Constant Times Mass(big M) divided by the quantity R squared.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2012
Einstein has not presented a model of how either, silly boy.

"Warping of space" doesn't even explain into what space or time is warped, and the only physical models used to explain the equations are self-referencial, such as a rubber sheet experiment.

At least you can visualize Newton's equations without using a self-referencial rubber sheet model.


No the "rubber sheet model" is only used with the lay public and freshmen (non-science major freshmen). Hopefully by the time a student is ready to tackle relativity and spacetime, they are able to work with spherical geometry and Riemannian geometry .
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
black holes have properties that resemble the dynamics of both solids and liquids
Like the foam dynamics. BTW The pictured model of black holes appears pretty like my ideas about appearance of neutron and proton - the loops pictured correspond the quarks in this model. There exists a correspondence between geometry of smallest and largest objects in the observable universe.
This means that there is a very surprising relationship between gravity and fluid mechanics..
This relationship is not so surprising, as the physicists know about the similarity of fluid mechanics, Maxwell's theory and gravity equations long time. After all, Maxwell derived his equations with using of dense elastic fluid model on his mind.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
It also works the same way in simple mechanical motion, so I know it works the same way in gravity.

F equals mA

If we divide both sides by "m" we get:

F/m equals A

But since Force is given in units:

kg*m/(s^2)

Then the mass,m,(kg) cancels.

pure units:

(kg*m/(s^2))/kg equals m/(s^2)

That is "The units of Force divided by the units of mass equals the units of acceleration."

This explains what happens to the "little m" in the gravity equation.

Apparently you never caught on.

Force equals mass(little m) times acceleration.

Acceleration equals Gravitational Constant Times Mass(big M) divided by the quantity R squared.


Your math skills are truly amazing. (Psst, tell me the truth, I won't tell, did you take 9th grade algebra? You should have gone on and taken a physics course or two.)
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
Dr. Gobbledygook,,,, Dr. There-Is-No-God-But-Plasma AND Dr. Potty-mouth.

All together at once,,,, folks it just doesn't get any better than this.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
Is the reason that a piezoelectric effect is predicted in this situation something understandable to a layperson?

The electromagnetic field was always suspected as a manifestation of vorticity of space-time. Such an ideas were quite common and widespread at the beginning of the 19th century - even young Einstein as a child did think in this way. But for me it's rather manifestation of stress of vacuum foam. When electromagnetic wave propagates trough vacuum foam, then the mutual connection of magnetic and electromagnetic field can be illustrated like this. When this foam gets stressed, it expands in perpendicular direction and this is what the duality of electric and magnetic field is about. In piezoelectric the charge is formed with displacement of elementary charges, which are balanced at the rest
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
The behavior of vacuum foam is complex but quite imaginable. It gets more dense at the moment, when you put more energy into - no matter which kind of energy it is (the E=mc^2 relation is agnostic in this extent). So when you deform the vacuum foam, it gets more dense in similar way like soap foam shaken in the vacuum - this change is very fast and reversible. This Java applet illustrates this behavior . So when the vacuum is swirling around black holes, it gets deformed and it becomes more dense accordingly. So that every vortex around black holes is behaving like more dense solid body in certain aspect. This effects are even observable at large cosmic scales as so-called dark matter rings. In this case the deform is very subtle, but because it manifest at very large scale, it becomes visible too.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2012
You left off the best part,,,, the "water waves" thingy.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
Because the Earth is rotating, the vortex of space-time should be detectable as a sparse ring as well. The recently observed fly-by anomalies indicate, that there is somewhat higher density of vacuum around Earth at the equatorial plane. If these anomalies will be confirmed, it would support even the above models of dark branes swirling around black holes, where the energy density is indeed much higher.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (9) Dec 11, 2012
Hurry up with the "water waves" already, I don't have all night to wait for it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
You left off the best part, the "water waves" thingy.
The principle of analogy is low dimensional simplification. The branes are spatial bulk objects - they cannot be modeled so easily with flat water surface, because they both have the same dimensionality. The 3D foam model is more illustrative in this point. But the common principle is, if the water surface gets deformed, then it becomes more dense for another waves spreading through this deformed place. It's because such a deformed place of surface exposes more tiny density fluctuations of Brownian noise - this is the mechanism, in which energy waves are getting mass with Higgs field. The above effects can be therefore considered as a manifestation of Higgs field or CMBR noise at large scales. After all, the atoms and atom nuclei aren't nothing else than just tiny but intensive vortices and deforms of vacuum - a tiny dark branes so to say.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
they cannot be modeled so easily with flat water surface, because they both have the same dimensionality


No, I didn't mean the "flat water surface",,,, that is not wavy, it's flat,,,

I was talking about the transverse waves becoming longitudinal waves which diffuse into the water below and mimics the inverse of the third squared duplex rama-lama-ding-dong.

That is one of the best "Zephyrisms" bar none. If you won't do the "water wave" thingy, will you at least post us a link to that blog thing you do?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
In string theory the dark branes are hyperdimensional objects, which means, they would appear like fuzzy noncompact objects in 3D space. You can imagine how some random 3D object will appear at the 2D water surface: it will penetrate it in many less or more isolated islands, which would appear like spherical particle in 3D space. Therefore you shouldn't afraid of hyperdimensional models at all: all material objects are effectively hyperdimensional. The do penetrate the 3D space in many mutually isolated particles which are held at distance with invisible "forces" and they move together as a single body. This is not how the compact 3D objects appear - this is the behaviour of hyperdimensional objects. The dark branes would appear in similar way - like dense but transparent neutrino clouds, bending and refracting the light. Or like the volume areas of more dense foam embedded into more sparse foam.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
In string theory the dark branes are hyperdimensional objects, which means, they would appear like fuzzy noncompact objects in 3D space. You can imagine how some random 3D object will appear at the 2D water surface: it will penetrate it in many less or more isolated islands, which would appear like spherical particle in 3D space. Therefore you shouldn't afraid of hyperdimensional models at all: all material objects are effectively hyperdimensional. The do penetrate the 3D space in many mutually isolated particles which are held at distance with invisible "forces" and they move together as a single body. This is not how the 3D objects appear - this is the behaviour of hyperdimensional objects. The dark branes would appear in similar way - they should appear like dense but transparent neutrino clouds, bending and refracting the light.


So I'll just have to see if I can find "water waves" in one of the other threads & reread it there? Thanks anyway, that one was pretty good.
Anda
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2012
The article begins stating that a particle is a point... and then all the rest is about string theory, where... A particle is not a point...
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
Quoth Lurker

No, it's left out because it is not the primary mass, the equation assumes the attracted object has mass, otherwise gravity could not attract it.


no, it's left out because it does not matter.

Fg equal GMm/r^2
Ag equal GM/r^2
F equal mA

Fg/m = Ag = GM/r^2

The little "m" cancels in the Force equation, giving the Acceleration equation.

The little m is therefore not in the acceleration equation because it cancels, ergo does not matter.



If mass "m" doesn't matter and if, as you claim, you can have a gravitational acceleration of a massless object from Newton's law of universal gravitation, to get that mass-independent acceleration formula you needed to DIVIDE BY ZERO!

More critically, Newtonian mechanics is about forces and changes in momentum.

"Singularities are where God divided by zero."
dav_daddy
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2012
@Lurker

In a way Newton did predict black holes, kinds. The closest he came was as someone previously said if a star reached a certain mass. That person left out the fact that Newton predicated this on the star having a gravitational field strong enough that it trapped all the luminiferous aether thus leaving no medium for the light to transfer through.

So if you really, really wanna rest on a technicality then yes he did. If he would have actually worked out an equation I'd speculate that he would have had a much lower mass as the tipping point of where a singularity is born.

That said in the real world no the Newtonian equations are flat out incapable of predicting a black hole as we know them. The afore mentioned fact that Newton relies on a tranfer medium for light (aether) also the fact that under Newton FTL travel is entirely possible and any thinking person would have to call BS on your entire premise.
Shinichi D_
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012

Regardless of the equation, gravity and mass are irrevocably tied together. Name one example of a massless object. (don't say a photon at rest please)


The universe. :)
sirchick
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2012
So easy to spot those who think they understand this stuff with no education at university level in physics.

Then to preach it on the internet is almost cringe worthy to read. I was entertained.
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2012
Q-Star:

My facility with the equations is just fine. Good enough to teach calculus based physics. History, I have my strong areas and weak areas.

I think you misunderstood the poor deranged Troll. He clearly said, in black on white: "f___ing history".
Now, that's a special kind of history he appears to be an expert in.

On second thought, perhaps you understood it well enough :-)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2012
@ Lurker: "Those are false statements. Black Holes were theorized before Einstein was even born."

That prediction, which actually was not (see GS comment), is inconsequential here. It is also a GR prediction, which physics is what ties into relativistic brane theory.

@ SeanW: As soon as it is not Lorentzian spacetime, it is an effect of non-GR physics. So it isn't the effective spacetime curvature (GR curvature) that is responsible.

I believe the coupling to particle fields (showing up as EM charge at the very least) comes automatically in brane theory. The paper is paywalled.

The main problem is likely that it is a first result on a worthwhile method to handle BH physics, but hasn't reached predictions that are testable outside of theory constraints as of yet.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2012
The main problem is likely that it is a first result on a worthwhile method to handle BH physics, but hasn't reached predictions that are testable outside of theory constraints as of yet


Not to mention the implications it would have on Maxwell's equations, among others. That's another problem with Newton's gravity; it doesn't account for light's wave/particle duality and agree with Maxwell's equations like GR does.

Newton argued for light being a particle till his dying day, and probably held physics back for a decade or two from his obstenance. Newton was a very interesting guy, and a real a-hole sometimes. He actually had people executed in the Tower of London when he was the Treasurer. Did you know that the little grooves on the outside edge of coins was his idea, to prevent people from shaving off little bits of silver from the edges? Well, maybe somebody else thought of it, but he got the credit for doing it. That would be typical for Newton.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
The mass or lack thereof of object B is irrelevant to whether that object is attracted to object A.

Newton's formula actually says object B will be attracted to object A whether or not B has mass, and regardless of how fast B is moving


No, your confusion is coming from a lack of true understanding. The reason acceleration from gravity is independent of mass is because inertia canceles that out. Objects at rest want to stay at rest, and all that. It just happens that an object's tendency to resist acceleration exactly canceles out with the increased acceleration, so it's a net zero. That isn't the same as saying that it doesn't exist; it just canceles out. A photon has no mass, so the acceleration does not cause a force on it.

No confusion here, they aren't massless when moving, this is why gravity can effect them


Under GR theory the reason gravity effects photons is due to the wavelike nature of a photon. It's the distortion of distance and time. continued:
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2012

Regardless of the equation, gravity and mass are irrevocably tied together. Name one example of a massless object. (don't say a photon at rest please)


The universe. :)


You son of a.....got me!
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2012
continued:

Imagine a wave (photon) oscillating through some space. Now imagine that the rate of flow of time is not uniform in the direction perpendicular to the directon the wave is traveling. As the wave (photon) zig-zags along its path, if time is a little bit slower in one direction, then the photon will spend a little bit longer in that region (relative to an outside observer) than on the opposite portion of its oscillations. That will cause the photon's path to be bent towards the direction where time is slower. In the extreme case inside the event horizon, that distortion is so extreme that the photon can only oscillate in one direction, and that's towards the center of mass. This can also be explained as a distortion of local distance, since they are interchangeable in GR, but the time analogy is easier to visualise. Experiments with clocks in orbit have proven this effect. Newtonian physics doesn't do this.
rubberman
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
Under GR theory the reason gravity effects photons is due to the wavelike nature of a photon. It's the distortion of distance and time. continued:

Damn GS, I was waiting. But I have to post and then get some stuff done. I know that statement goes against GR theory, I interpreted GR theory as gravity distorting spacetime, therefore light entering a region of gravitationally warped spacetime will bend/distort along with spacetime itself. I don't dispute it as it is sound logic. Gravitational lensing, prime example.

I just go right back to the interchangeability of mass and energy, and that other tidbit the big "E" gave us, E=mc^2. Unless I misinterperate these premesis, a photon must have a mass component when moving.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
BTW, the idea that a photon has mass when it is moving is actually not a good interpretation of the theory. It's actually not said to have a mass in the sense you mean. A photon is said to carry momentum, but that's just a simplified terminology. It would be more accurate to say that a photon has the ability to transfer momentum from one massive object to another. It's a consequence of conservation of energy when the photon is either emitted or absorbed and the fact that a photon has a vector component which makes the energy transfer have a direction. These principles are related to Maxwell's theories, and how they are unified with GR. When that was first realized, it was one of the biggest OMG moments in modern science. String theory does not seem to be unified with EM theory without doing some really questionable math.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2012
That's actually not correct. It's left out of the acceleration formula because it does not matter.


In the formula F = G(m1*m2)/r^2 where if either m1 or m2 goes to zero, the force with which the two object interact becomes zero. That's why no massless object can experience a Newtonian gravitational field.

The formula for the gravitational field is partially differentiated from that one, and that's why the formula loses the m. It becomes a factor of one, but that factor still remains. The connection to mass is still there because what you have is actually dF/dm = g and if you integrate it to get to a force field, the m has to re-appear.

Otherwise the math makes no sense. You'd have acceleration, but no force.

pure units:

(kg*m/(s^2))/kg equals m/(s^2)


You cannot rid yourself of mass just because the units don't have it. You're arguing in similiar veins that because you can't find any flour in a cake, no flour is needed to bake a cake.

rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2012
"BTW, the idea that a photon has mass when it is moving is actually not a good interpretation of the theory."

To be quite truthful I cringe when I use the terms mass and energy in these contexts...I wind up tripping over terminology. I totally agree with everything you stated above regarding the photon and Maxwell (Vector potential,I'd give some credit to Schrodinger too). I'll be back GS, I enjoy our talks.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2012
You cannot rid yourself of mass just because the units don't have it.


That's correct. As I said earlier, the mass in the acceleration term canceles out with the mass in the inertia term, but that's just math. That actually leads to one of the most profound shortfalls of Newtonian physics; it fails to demonstrate the equivalence of a gravitational field and constant acceleration, which leads to relativistic frames of reference. Newtonian physics cannont account for this. In the Newtonian world, if you are in a spaceship moving at some speed, and you shine a flashlight forward, then the speed of the light leaving your flashlight will be C plus the speed of the spaceship. And yes, if the mass terms really didn't matter, then this would be the Universe we live in, but it's not. You can't describe our Universe with only Newtonian physics since they are not complete.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
Unless I misinterperate these premesis, a photon must have a mass component when moving.


You are not misinterpreting the premise. Just expand your interpretation a bit.

With Special Relativity, there is a mass-energy equivalence. Even though a particle is mass-LESS, it does possess a mass-LIKE momentum. The equivalence is necessary because mass-energy is a conserved property. The separate terms "mass" & "energy" sometimes leads to great confusion.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2012
To be quite truthful I cringe when I use the terms mass and energy in these contexts...I wind up tripping over terminology.


Yeah, it gets tricky when terms like momentum are used as a simplification because it can be misinterpreted by laypeople who take it litterally and therefore incorrectly infer mass is involved. The 'momentum' of a photon is a simplified shorthand used to keep track of the potential energy of a photon on paper. It doesn't have a real world analogue. It just makes the units play nice with the other kiddies when doing the electron energy math.

Yeah, I have enjoyed your comments too. I'm always glad when there's at least one other person here who understands enough to really grasp the nuances.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2012
So it's evident, that the general relativity and quantum mechanics are intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives of the same situation


Just a guess here, and I'm not in a position to argue it in any detail, but here's my two cents on that:

Either GR or QM (or both) must be missing something. Since the properties of GR are so much easier to test and observe due to the large scales, I have an intuitive feeling that the problem is more likely to be with QM than GR.

It seems to me that if we really had a complete solution for QM, it should be more predictive in terms of material properties and things like superconductivity. It seems obvious that we're missing something major in subatomic theory, since we can't predict or explain most of the properties of bulk materials.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
In the Newtonian world, if you are in a spaceship moving at some speed, and you shine a flashlight forward, then the speed of the light leaving your flashlight will be C plus the speed of the spaceship. And yes, if the mass terms really didn't matter, then this would be the Universe we live in, but it's not. You can't describe our Universe with only Newtonian physics since they are not complete.


Excellent explanation!
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2012
In the Newtonian world, if you are in a spaceship moving at some speed, and you shine a flashlight forward, then the speed of the light leaving your flashlight will be C plus the speed of the spaceship. And yes, if the mass terms really didn't matter, then this would be the Universe we live in, but it's not. You can't describe our Universe with only Newtonian physics since they are not complete.


Excellent explanation!

But then to explain the fact that the speed of light is always constant in a vaccuum you have to introduce "exotic" explanations.
If it is a wave which is not influenced by velocity of the source then stuff like "Aether" which is supposed to act as the medium and structure for light to propagate in would also have to be introduced.
The structure that space/vacuum is made up of isn't yet clearly understood on a quantum level.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2012
In the Newtonian world, if you are in a spaceship moving at some speed, and you shine a flashlight forward, then the speed of the light leaving your flashlight will be C plus the speed of the spaceship
Such a thing happens at the water surface too: if you create a wave with paddle from the floating boat, the the speed of wave will not be the sum of speed of boat and the speed of paddle - it will remain speed of wave only.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2012
Spin *is* important. So is the presence of another gravity source.

Modelling a 2-dimensional plane of points and bringing those points together toward a threshold of proximity where the momentum of their mass continues their progress until that threshold is reached whereby the process bunches them all up into some conformation of which folding is determined by the attractive forces of other masses, until they are assembled into a patterned three dimensional polygon with a stable configuration.
Rohitasch
not rated yet Dec 16, 2012
...All black holes are Newtonian first, and nobody has ever proven otherwise. Whether or not they have relativistic effects on matter around them is irrelevant to the question of the physics that causes the black hole.


Newton's laws simply show that if escape velocity equals the speed of light, light can't escape a gravitational well. This description is not of a Black Hole. The most important feature of a Black Hole is that time intervals are stretched to tend towards infinity at the hole's horizon from the perspective of an observer in asymptotically flat space, ie, very far from the hole's horizon.
In the Newtonian description, distant observers see events taking place right next to the v=c limit as red shifted but at the same pace as they do in their labs: clocks don't slow down near the horizon at all. Therefore the observer doesn't have to wait forever for ticks of a falling clock to reach h' in Newtonian "Dark Stars", as those were called.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
Ahhh your all full of shit....

Black holes are just holes that have a coat of black paint on them.
NOM
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2012
@Lex Tardonis
Ahhh your all full of shit....
That should be "you're all full of shit".

If you're going to troll, get it right.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
@NOM

Why? If what I do adds meaning and value to your otherwise worthless life, then why complain?
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
Das vollständige Schwarzschild-Modell bestehend aus der inneren Lösung und der äußeren Lösung beschreibt das Gravitationsfeld eines nichtrotierenden Sterns oder Planeten und lässt keine Spekulationen über Singularitäten wie Schwarze Löcher zu.
http://de.wikiped...d-Metrik


His real name was Karl Schwarzschild. - frajo


And the German Wikipedia version includes what is missing in the English translation:
The Schwarzchild model excludes speculation over whether black holes exist.

And everyone knows if you don't give Americans something to play with they go ape shit and berserk.
So all Germans will encourage the Americans to continue to play with black holes. We know better than to upset the child by taking the toy away. It's bad enough you can't make waves - gravitationally.

Oh, and keeping with American tradition - it's a conspiracy. O.k.?
Now go play.
Tausch
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2012
@Sean
Did you read the German Wikipedia version?