Black holes could grow as large as 50 billion suns before their food crumbles into stars according to research

December 18, 2015, University of Leicester
This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a torus, is made up of gas and dust. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Black holes at the heart of galaxies could swell to 50 billion times the mass of the sun before losing the discs of gas they rely on to sustain themselves, according to research at the University of Leicester.

In a study titled 'How Big Can a Black Hole Grow?', Professor Andrew King from the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy explores supermassive at the centre of galaxies, around which are regions of space where gas settles into an orbiting disc.

This gas can lose energy and fall inwards, feeding the black hole. But these discs are known to be unstable and prone to crumbling into stars.

Professor King calculated how big a black hole would have to be for its outer edge to keep a disc from forming, coming up with the figure of 50 billion .

The study suggests that without a disc, the black hole would stop growing, meaning 50 billion suns would roughly be the upper limit. The only way it could get larger is if a star happened to fall straight in or another black hole merged with it.

Professor King said: "The significance of this discovery is that astronomers have found black holes of almost the maximum mass, by observing the huge amount of radiation given off by the gas disc as it falls in. The mass limit means that this procedure should not turn up any masses much bigger than those we know, because there would not be a luminous disc.

"Bigger black hole masses are in principle possible—for example, a hole near the maximum mass could merge with another black hole, and the result would be bigger still. But no light would be produced in this merger, and the bigger merged black hole could not have a disc of that would make light.

"One might nevertheless detect it in other ways, for example as it bent light rays passing very close to it (gravitational lensing) or perhaps in future from the gravitational waves that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts would be emitted as it merged."

The paper 'How Big Can a Black Hole Grow?' is available on Arxiv.

Explore further: Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

More information: How Big Can a Black Hole Grow? arXiv:1511.08502 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1511.08502

Related Stories

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Black hole is 30 times expected size

September 24, 2015

The central supermassive black hole of a recently discovered galaxy is far larger than should be possible, according to current theories of galactic evolution. New work, carried out by astronomers at Keele University and ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Cosmic jets light up black hole's snack

December 16, 2015

A black hole is often thought of as a giant galactic vacuum cleaner constantly sucking in cosmic material, tearing it apart and swallowing it. So black holes should do exactly the same thing with stars, right?

Powerful jets from non-spinning black holes

November 18, 2015

A black hole is so simple (at least in traditional theories) that it can be completely described by just three parameters: its mass, its spin, and its electric charge. Even though it may have formed out of a complex mix of ...

Recommended for you

NASA's Mars 2020 rover is put to the test

March 20, 2019

In a little more than seven minutes in the early afternoon of Feb. 18, 2021, NASA's Mars 2020 rover will execute about 27,000 actions and calculations as it speeds through the hazardous transition from the edge of space to ...

64 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
If they understood the true nature of subatomic structure, they would know that Black Holes are just the remnants of the original Big Bang. They could be any size but that is determined by the ratio of matter to energy, in the universe. Something only God knows. Theoretically!
wduckss
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
A black hole appears when physics fails. Then you do not see the real universe and can be ignored scientific evidence (the diameter of the disk (galaxies) is 30,000 light-years, while the diameter of the hole is the size of the stars).
Can hiccough, spit, vacuuming side, eat a star 15,000 light years away. Luckily we are away 28,000 ly.
SuperThunder
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2015
Professor King calculated how big a black hole would have to be for its outer edge to keep a disc from forming, coming up with the figure of 50 billion solar masses.

50 billion suns of anything is just ridiculous, and 50 billion suns of black hole is just... so scary it shuts your brain off. You try to imagine yourself close enough to it to get a true sense of its scale, but are immediately faced with a sense of transcendental horror at the idea of being that close to it. Thank goodness that's just a mathematical number and black holes don't really get that big.
The significance of this discovery is that astronomers have found black holes of almost the maximum mass

Oh. Well, primal fear can be healthy too, I guess. I'll just have to get used to that huge number and at least be thankful it can't get worse.
The only way it could get larger is if a star happened to fall straight in or another black hole merged with it.

Oh.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 18, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (17) Dec 18, 2015
so scary it shuts your brain off.

So, apparently you were deathly frightened of something when you were 6yo and decided to never to it back on. Explains much!
SuperThunder
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 18, 2015
So, apparently you were deathly frightened of something when you were 6yo and decided to never to it back on. Explains much!

If you're over the age of 12, your parents failed you.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2015
50 billion suns of black hole is just... so scary it shuts your brain off

Roughly half the mass of our galaxy. That's a pretty hard number to wrap one's brain around.
TheWalrus
5 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.
Kaymen
3 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.


It's because there are certain Tools here that refuse to aknowledge any scientific theories other than their own.
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2015
@richardwenzel987: The gravitational acceleration at the boundary of a black hole decreases as its mass increases. That's why massive black holes have less acceleration due to gravity at their boundary; also the acceleration varies little with the distance from the boundary and thus there are less tidal effects compared to small black holes. A 50 billion sun-mass black hole has 30 times the Earth's normal gravitational acceleration at its Schwarzschild boundary and tidal effects on an Earth sized planet 20 times less than those the Moon has on Earth.
Gigel
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
@Frosted Flake: The BH just like the Sun may absorb gas, but does not absorb orbiting bodies like stars and planets.

Of course there remains the problem of how stable an orbiting system around a BH is. Stars interacting among themselves may end up falling into the BH.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2015
What difference is it to a black hole whether it absorbs gas, dust, gravel, boulders, a Cadillac, a planet, a star or your momma?

Think of it like this:

An accretion disc is a lot of very small particles (dust/gas) in orbit around the black hole. As long as a body isn't disturbed it stays in motion (Newtons law of motion) and nothing falls in. But in a disc there's a lot of chances of stuff (dust grains, gas molecules) to bump into each other and transfer momentum (conservation of momentum). One may speed up, while the other may slow down. When stuff slows down it goes to a lower orbit. If it gets low enough it will merge with the black hole.

Now if the disc goes all gritty (collapsing into stars and larger bodies) then there's much less chance of such collisions because now entire stars would have to bump into another. Not impossible but a lot less likely. So the amount of stuff that gets low enough to get caught drops radicall.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


Agreed. And hardly worth a comment, except that the question has interested me from the beginning of an insight: SQK.

In SQK, the growth occurs from within, not from without as the merger maniacs contend despite substantial evidence to the otherwise, such as massive winds blowing outward in all directions, extreme jets, etc. And the growth accelerates with further growth, leading to a runaway condition such as quasars, blazers, etc.

However, with the growing matter expulsion rates, eventually the condition would reach stable equilibrium, with the outflows equalling the new matter formation rates. Simple logic, which seems to be what is observed.

My guess is that these extreme objects will have largely expelled the surrounding galaxy of stars as well.

retrosurf
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2015
I think I would say "curdles into stars" rather than "crumbles into stars".

The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


This is one of the most important parts of Science, called the Scientific Method. Most specifically, it is a Hypothesis. This is how Science grows and integrates new knowledge.

Another part of modern scientific inquiry is peer review, which is how hypotheses are (for the most part) kept from being fluffy bunny tails. It can't be anything you want, unless you want to do it in your own private spaces.

I believe that you are also mistaken about the definition of irony. I think you meant something like "The real error is that most people believe that this is science." or "The real tragedy ...". I think Alanis Morrissette has a lot to answer for here.

my2cts
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 19, 2015
The great thing about theoretical mumbo jumbo such as above, it can be what ever you want it to be. Even fluffy bunny tails. The real irony is most people believe this is science.


Agreed.

Two merging maniacs.
TheWalrus
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2015
My Thanks to Gigel and Antialias. Your comments helped. I now have a better question. At least, I think it is better.

The inverse square law means a small BH has a much sharper gravity gradient than a large one. However, the point of no return for a physical object differs from the event horizon, where light no longer escapes. What prevents the accretion disk (or its' equivalent remnant) from residing inside the event horizon?

Maybe my imagination betrays me, but I think there is a very, very, VERY large amount of 'space' and 'time' inside an event horizon. Also, an accretion disk outside the event horizon which has curdled to stars (and planets) will continue to interact with itself gravitationally. This will cause stars to be deflected into the BH on a regular basis. THAT would feed the BH as effectively as gas losing energy to friction.

So, am I way off base here, or what?

Thanks.


Yes.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
What prevents the accretion disk (or its' equivalent remnant) from residing inside the event horizon?

Inside an event horizon there is no geodesic that leads away from the center of a black hole. Read: all paths (even for light) end at the singularity (or whatever is down there) no matter where you point.
In turn this means that nuclear forces, which hold atoms together, no longer work. So even in stuff like protons or neutrons the force carriers that hold the quarks together can't really interchange anymore if one of the quarks just happens to be a tiny fraction further away from the center than any of the others. Stuff just falls apart on a subatomic level and keeps accelerating towards the center.
There's no stable orbits inside the event horizon. (Note that there are also no stable orbits ON the event horizon. The closest stable orbit is where light goes tangential and can keep station, but at the event horizon it has to go radial to do the same)

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2015
Also, an accretion disk outside the event horizon which has curdled to stars (and planets) will continue to interact with itself gravitationally. This will cause stars to be deflected into the BH on a regular basis.

Not nearly at the rate as a dusty/gas disc. Remember that if you were to, say, replace the sun with a black hole of one solar mass nothing would change for us (except it would get darker). But no planet would have its orbit altered in the least. A system doesn't become unstable (or stuff gets suddenly sucked in) just because the mass at the center is a black hole.

And since black holes are tiny compared to stars of equivalent mass the chances of a direct 'hit' (needed for a swallowing action) is reduced further. It's a lot more likely that stars in such an orbiting cluster get kicked out altogether by a close flyby than to be sucked in and destroyed.

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Hat tip
@frosted flake
1- antialias_physorg is a PhD who is helpful
2- davidW thinks "life is most important in life" - this is nonsense circular reasoning, thus can be summarily placed in the crackpot category
3- there is a wise piece of advice he gave, though..."think for yourself"

I would also suggest always researching and seeking source material (meaning peer reviewed journal papers, not just random internet links or pages)

also: you can learn (free) for yourself here - http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

there are multiple courses to take

so, some quick helpful tips:
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE - don't make up your mind, let the evidence speak
always validate a claim
Ask for references (reputable peer reviewed journals)
check the facts (like the electric universe claims - they're pseudoscience)
never use random google... use this: https://scholar.google.com/

ENJOY YOURSELF and keep learning
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
@Frosted Flake continued
you can also usually tell a lot about a person by their posting rating: take davidW, for instance - click this link: https://sciencex....W/?v=act

his rating is 1.6 and is usually up-rated by crackpots or pseudoscience advocates (unless he makes a good point)
to open up any persons ratings: right click on their name (blue HTTP link), then open in a new tab or window... select the "all >>" and read the votes

his downraters tend to be those who advocate science & logic

this is not always the case as people like zephir like to create multiple sock-puppets to skew the system (older posters are not affected as much because of the bulk of historical posts)

people who tend to stick to science usually also give references/links as well as offer ways for you to learn for yourself

one last point: ENJOY YOURSELF and keep learning - i capitalized it above and here for a reason

this is actually important!
ask questions and seek answers
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
But what about the black holes that ARE traveling - through galaxies... kind of like combine harvesters, through an endless sea of wheat?

If you really want to use this analogy then a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you that you have a wheat field in which each individual wheat plant(stem diameter on average 5cm) is roughly 50 million kilometers from the next one and your harvester (black hole) is from 5mm to 2.5m wide (smallest black holes observed to roughly the size of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way)

As you can imagine you're not going to have much effect when you move through the galaxy with such a 'harvester' as the chance of actually hitting any 'wheat' is fairly remote.

A supermassive black hole would distort a galaxy quite a bit along its way (which would not affect the amount of matter it catches significantly, BTW),
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
Add to that that only the most massive black holes will really rip through a galaxy (and they are accompanied by an entire galaxy themselves - so the fireworks will be due to that - not the black hole).
Any black hole of middling to small size will eventually settle into an orbit around the central, supermassive black hole - just like all other stars in the galaxy. At that point its oribital velocity is the same as that of the other starts in its neighborhood so it won't swallow any of them, ever.

The point is: The chance that a black hole actually swallows a star (that is not already influenced by its accretion disc) is as remote as two normal stars bumping into each other- which itself is a fairly uncommon occurence

(Note, even in the event of a head-on crash: A small-mass black hole moving at great relative speed could well move through a star without destroying it, come out the other side, and both be happily on their way.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Since the galaxy I created on the first day, is actually swirling "into the plug hole"

It's not swirling in. No more so as the planets in our solar system are swirling in towards the sun. A black hole is a locus of gravity just any other massive body (and there are many stars that have more mass than small black holes, BTW). No special 'sucking in' rules apply outside a BHs event horizon.

Stuff will stay in orbit around a BH endlessly until and unless that stuff bumps into other stuff and one of the two comes out with so little angular momentum (relative to the central black hole) that it's resulting orbit will be so low that it gets caught (or ripped to shreds by the difference of gravity on its near to its far side...which is something that also only happens to stars that are really, really, REALLY close to a black hole.)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
I mean you can ONLY crush matter so much

Matter isn't crushed. As noted before matter can't really exist inside a black hole (because the forces that keep matter stable don't work anymore). What exactly goes on inside a black hole is not kown, but it certainly isn't a "ball of super-dense matter at its center".
If we posit that everything gets turned into energy elementary entities like photons then you can have an infinitely small region where these all end up (as stuff like photons have no problem with superposition)

However, another thing to consider is that space - as measured by the only universal/constant ruler we have (speed of light) is inifintely big inside a black hole. This is because the only universal measure of length is "how long does it take a photon to get from A to B and multiply this by speed of light". Inside a BH if you ask "how long does it take a photon to traverse the distance between any point inside (A) and the surface (B)" it's: "infinite".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
photons once it has formed from the matter and hence, photons maintain the gravity?

I said _like_ photons. I don't know if everything is converted to photons. As the current theories (specifically the 'no hair theorem') give BHs a very limited number of properties (mass, spin and charge) it cannot be that everything is converted to photons, since photons carry no charge.

Right, got it....math fairies.

"Math fairies" which are the basis why e.g. the stuff you carry around in your cell phone works (GPS). It's your choice not to believe in stuff you use 24/7 - but don't expect anyone to be impressed by lack of belief in the verifiable.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

Warping of space due to gravity is verifiable. GPS depends on this knowledge for keeping accuracy.

And learn to read: I did not say nothing about BHs is verifiable. I said we don't know what ultimately becomes of the matter that falls in. That's an entirely different statement.

The rest of your post makes no sense. Wanna try again in english?
Tuxford
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2015
Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

Warping of space due to gravity is verifiable. GPS depends on this knowledge for keeping accuracy.


Really basic logic: Don't really think too well, eh?

The effect on the GPS satellites is verifiable. The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2015
The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.

You missed the past century of scientific advances and experiments? Really? I mean: even reading on physorg you managed to miss all this? Seriously?
(Or are you just posting without ever bothering to read any of the articles? Or are you just lacking the 'understanding' part?)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.
Actually it's theory – so feel free to speculate all you want on ways to test the theory and prove it wrong.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2015

Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

That statement of course is totally wrong.
You are not in command of the facts.
Study this if you want to improve:
http://www.eventh...cope.org
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
The effect on the GPS satellites is verifiable. The precise cause being the warping of something undetectable is still speculation.

GRT predicts the effect. It is observed.
That is not speculation by any standards.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2015
Reading comments on science Websites is even more disturbing that reading YouTube comments.


Reading published articles about physics based solely on math is even more so than that.

Reading comments from people who think these objects are actually possible in physical reality is pretty entertaining though.

bs, your confidence is based solely on self delusion.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
Too bad it isn't a universal observation

And where exactly *isn't* it observed?
Certainly there are areas where it's negligible, but it's always there.

Either light must follow every curved path where gravity is warping space

You don't get at all what warped space actually means, do you? Light moves straight. Always. It _cannot_ move in a curved path (when moving free - i.e. no mirrors or active waveguides).
Light moving in a curved path would require a change in momentum - which in turn would mean a photon would have to emit a photon on such a path. Since it doesn't there is no 'curve' to its path.

Light is not bent. Space is bent. Every experiment regarding GR has confirmed this. It is one of the most thoroughly (if not THE most thoroughly) tested and verified theory in all of science.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2015
If gravity warps space, all mass curves the path of light to some degree because for this law to apply it must.

*Sigh* the path is straight. We see it as curved (like you see a straw that is in water as being bent at the interface between water and air. But the straw isn't bent at all)

Maybe you should try to understand what the word 'straight' even means. The straight path is the shortes path between two points. Since light (specifically the speed of light) is the only constant we have to measure anything by the straight path between two points is the path in which light takes the shortest possible amount of time.
If it _were_ on a curved path you could conceive of a shorter path (i.e. a 'straighter' path) but you can't (if you could it would allow for some weird violations of causality)

Since it isn't observed as universal,

Every experiment conducted with respect to this has confirmed it's universal. Every. Single. One.

my2cts
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015

Nothing about Black holes is verifiable

That statement of course is totally wrong.
You are not in command of the facts.
Study this if you want to improve:
http://www.eventh...cope.org


You believe in fantasy science. Your link is about a telescope that can still only absorb emmitted light which means it still cannot verify the claims made by the mainstream about the fundamental properties of a black hole. As usual, you are too simple minded to understand this....but thanks for verifying it yet again.

You should tell the EHT team and their sponsors that they are imbeciles barking up the wrong tree. This is a great opportunity to make a name for yourself. Noble prize guaranteed.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015

Actually, it's based on my ability ...

Rambo the Uber Dunning Kruger King speaking .
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2015
Certainly there are areas where it's negligible, but it's always there.

Think about the ramifications of this, please.

There are no ramifications.
viko_mx
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2015
Black holes are only mathematical construction with logical errors. Not real existing physical objects. The curved space exist only your imagination of speculators. Only they know what is curved in curved space?
Тhe light refracts on the border of two media with different optical characteristics.You did not need a fancy curved space.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
@FF
He's not ranting on black holes but on gravitational lensing. He imagines that lensing is caused by a material, optical lens around every star and galaxy. Probably the "creator" is peeking through that lens to get a close view of us and check which ones of us do not say prayers and have to be thrown in the "lake of fire". Quotes refer to earlier posts of viko.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
Think about the ramifications of this, please.

What ramifications? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation will show you that the effect is so incredibly minute for anything but the most massive masses and distances that for the purpose of most experiments in other areas it can be safely ignored (Like you can use Newtonian mechanics for almost every aspect of motion instead of Relativity without changin the results - and for the very same reason, BTW)

Or do we only observe light following a curved path SOMETIMES

Light moves straight. Always. It is the definition of straight (i.e. that which is the shortest path (geodesic) in spacetime).
https://en.wikipe...Geodesic

(Note: this may APPEAR curved to you because you live in this warped spacetime. But to 'appear' and to 'be' are two different kettle of fish)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
The effect, if the theory is correct, would then HAVE to manifest in EVERY gravity well.

Funnily enough, it does (as evinced by every experiment that has been thrown at it). So what's your problem?

there CANNOT be ANY instances where light DOESN"T follow the warped path

Exactly. Unless you have an experiment that shows otherwise which all of physicists are unaware of.

If a fucking asteroid has gravity, it is curving space according to GRT,

It does (very little though, because a asteroid has very little mass). But the first experiment that confirmed warping of space was the apparent(!) displacement of a star close to the sun (observed during a solar eclipse). If gravity hadn't warped space the star would have appeared somewhere else.
https://en.wikipe..._the_Sun
(Note that Newton also predict a warping - but the value is off by 50%. Relativity gets it right.)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
If gravity does warp space then EVERY star cannot be where it appears.

Ding, ding, ding ding. And the last horse crosses the finish line. Didya work that out all by yourself, Einstein? Coulda just looked that up, you know?

(But don't be too confused. The effect is, for the most part, so small as to be irrelevant for experimental - and most certinaly 'najed eye' - observations)
Instruments are getting just now into the vicinity of sensitivities where this needs to be taken into account regarding observations of the cosmic microwave background.

Does the hubble telescope view stars to be in the exact same postition as earth based telescopes?

No it does not (it also observes a different redshift due to different gravity conditions). But again, the difference is so negligible as Hubble is only a few hundred km further from Earth than earthbound telescopes. Even if it were in deep space the effect would still be astronomically (pun intended) small.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
At the surface of the earth there should be greater 'warping" of "spacetime"

Well, no. Plug it into the formula and you will see that the warping of space close to the planet is very small (if the star is overhead you get no bending at all, BTW, because there's as much mass 'bending'* the light one way as there is another)

*note, that the light goes straight. I'm using 'bending' here because you can't seem to let go of this weird image.

When you look at the formula you will see that to get really noticeable bending (like Einstein rings/crosses) you need a huge mass close by and the light rays travelling at a minute angle from behind that mass (i.e. a constellation like Q2237+030 where a 400 million ly away galaxy (massive) bends the light of an 8 billion ly away quasar (bright source))
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
If gravity does warp space then EVERY star cannot be where it appears.

Just for completeness sake (since you didn't know about warping you might be unaware of this as well): light has a finite speed. So everything we see (galaxies, stars, planets, and the car coming at you down the street) isn't where it seems, either. What you see is the light that was emitted some time ago and the object that you see has moved (or in the case of far away stars likely ceased to exist altogether) in the meantime.

But that goes into a rather complicated problem of simultaneity (another of those issues that were solved by Relativity...or better yet: where our rather naive ideas were shattered forever by someone actually making sense of reality )
https://en.wikipe...ltaneity
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Something has to change - eventually, because sooner or later, in some way, shape or form, something has to evolve.

Why? I mean: It's possible that things change, but currently we have no reason to believe it would.
You might feed all the mass of the entire universe into a black hole and just end up with a really big black hole.

We don't have the time or space in this forum to completely discuss all of the effects, claims and the contradictions.

Well, if you stopped wasting your time being vague you could have brought out a couple dozen of these 'effects' and 'contradictions' by now. But one will do. We've been waiting for you to trot out one for somewhere between 10 and 20 posts now.

Gravity is claimed to effect the frequency of redshift?

Not just claimed. Experimentally verified
https://en.wikipe...periment

Do those photons also follow the warped path of spacetime?

Sure. Just as all photons do.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
non mainstream: bschott
mainstream: physics of the last 150 years
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2015
ALL light must appear to bend WHEREVER space is warped.

It does not.

It does. This misunderstanding means that you are empty handed, so you are not in a position to overthrow Maxwell theory, GRT, and what ever else you disagree with.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015

Gravity is claimed to effect the frequency of redshift?

What does that even mean?
Do those photons also follow the warped path of spacetime?

Why do you ask? Of course they do.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2015
bschott if you have a theory that makes GRT redundant please send it to me.
I will steal your idea and get the Nobel prize.
You have not. No reason to be ashamed, no one has.
However you should be ashamed for all the nonsense you post here. It is ridiculous.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2015
According to GRT any body near a large mass will follow a straight line in a curved space.
That is how GRT describes planetary orbits. Not only light is curved, all motion is curved.
That is what GRT says and no one has disproven GRT or made it redundant.
I'm just telling you the undeniable facts, so don't shoot the messenger.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
@Lex
Take a look here:
https://en.wikipe...ack_hole
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
And if MORE and MORE matter were crushed - how much can be added until it stops crushing????

As noted before: matter isn't stable inside the event horizon. So there's probably no 'crushing' going on at all. Fermions (like protons and neutrons) are governed by the Pauli exclusion principle (i.e. no two of the same type can exist at the same place).
Bosons (like force carriers - e.g. photons or even composite stuff like mesons) aren't subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, and they can superpose just fine.
So if (and this is just a random hypothesis) stuff gets turned into bosons then you can have infinitely many of those in an as small space as you like without any problems.

as in going on from Neutron stars (incredibly dense) to black holes (unshining stars)

There's not really a collapse sequence unless the neutron star aquires a LOT more mass from somewhere. Neutron stars are stable.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
Or why are small black holes, tiny-ish and HUGE black holes, quite a bit larger,

Size is a direct result of mass for a black hole (note that - as opposed to other stellar bodies - the size of a black hole does not denote some physical body, but the event horizon. It is possible to pass through the event horizon). You can calculate the Schwartzschild radius simply by plugging in the mass into this formula:
http://hyperphysi...hol.html

what happens if you keep feeding them?

They get bigger. Currently there's absolutely no indication anything else happens (at least none of the millions of galaxies observed have suddenly spiked something unusual) . They can't get infinitely big but that's just because there isn't infinite mass to feed them.
my2cts
2 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
No I can't. Your question is too vague.
With all the trolls here I don't waste my time on such an errand.
But no thanks too you too.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2015
But small BH's materially grow, simply by the intake of more matter.

The BH doesn't grow. There's no 'ball of compressed matter' at the center that accretes.
The event horizon (which is just an arbitrarily defined distance at which the escape velocity starts to exceed the speed of light) gets further out. But that's just the radius of an EFFECT - not a physical thing.

well it's like there has to be a limit on even how many of them can occupy a space

For Bosons there isn't. E.g. you can shine as many lasers accross one spot as you want and an infinity of photons will happily superpose at that spot without anything special happening. Same goes for other force carriers and even some stuff made up of quarks (mesons)*. The deciding factor is whether the spin total is even (0,1, 2, 3, etc.) as opposed to fo Fermions where it's 1/2, 3/2, etc.. Fermions can't superpose.

*This is why BOSE-Einstein condensates are so fascinating critters.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2015
but we only observe it when there is lensing..

Erm..no. I said we observe it always. It's just that if we look at a star and it doesn't show a spectacular thing like an einstein cross or a ring then we just see the star slightly off from where it would appear if space were 'flat' everywhere. That doesn't produce anything spectacular. A star that is 0.001° off from where we would see it if space were flat still looks like a star.

So it's not a big deal, because for the most part:
a) The offset is so small (because there are no large masses in the way) that it's below the sensitivity of any instruments we have.
b) We do not live in flat space. So there's no point in crying about how stars aren't where we would expect them if it were.

To spell it out: Lensing is where it makes pretty pictures. Everywhere else it's also - it's just not very noticeable.
Google for "CMBR lensing" and find out that this effect is used all over the place in science.
matt_s
4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2015
And now we see how badly bschott misunderstands. Do you really not understand that sometimes an effect is so small it's negligible?

It'd be like you claiming that we "only measure gravity of the Earth or the Sun, but if all mass has gravity, then your body must too! We don't measure this effect or take it into account, so you're just selectively applying it!"

Wrongggggggggggg.

Same concept, but on a larger scale. The effect is minuscule EXCEPT for when dealing with large enough masses. So yes, light always travels the shortest path. No, it is not "selectively applied" or whatever you think is going on.

my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2015
bs sets new standards on wrongness.
Rambo the Dunning Kruger King.
He agresses anyone who tells him so.
fubar. ciao.

https://en.wikipe...guation)
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2015
@ davidW
You are insane.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
So, antialias_physorg, are you going to tell the ones you love that they are not most important

Why should I do such a thing?

But you have to realize that there is a difference between 'personal' and 'important'. There are things that I personally (subjectively) find most desirable. But that doesn't automatically mean that these things are objectively most important.

See, that's the thing where you religious nutcases always get it wrong. Just because you really want something to be a certain way doesn't automatically mean that it is.
It's like with children: They just wanna, wanna, wanna, and if they don't get then they throw a hissy fit or go into denial.

Grow up. (and I mean this for you personally and all those religious people out there)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
He may hold a Phd. title, but that is not who he is. We ARE NOT our actions.

Who else are we? Are we our words?

Yes, I hold a title. No, that doesn't count for diddly-squat in an argument (unless someone argues that I don't know what I'm talking about in that particular area of expertise. In that case I can just go: "meh" )

Explain to us why the truth is important.

I dunno, because you seem to have a definition of 'truth' that no one else in the world shares (ond one that, honestly, after all your rantings and ravings is as unclear as ever). You seem to be using words you don't know what they even mean (like 'life' and 'truth'). Peruse a dictionary at some point. It might help.

It's all nice and dandy that you make up new meanings for established words for yourself. But you must realize that that won't impress (much less convince) anyone out there.
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2015
DavidW has been banned from at least one other forum, lied about it then threatened me for exposing him.

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2015
@physorg
It is high time he gets a ban here too.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2016

I think there is a very, very, VERY large amount of 'space' and 'time' inside an event horizon.


Not really a large amount. it's just very very stretched.


So, am I way off base here, or what?


yea, you're maybe going a bit too fast. You are drawing conclusions on conclusions. If one of them is wrong, all that follows afterwards can only be more wrong. Might I suggest trying to figure out one fact at a time?

On this section you basically have knowledgable people like (astro)physicists and you have laymen and crackpots.

As a layman (like me) trying to understand things, it's a good idea verifying what you think with books, articles and helpful people like antialias -one fact at a time- and then take it further from there.

If you don't, you might end up going into that "wrong conclusions" loop or even worse, you might start taking it for true. Then you end up being a crackpot and I would have to add you to my ignore list, which I prefer not to.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.