Desert telescope stakes out supermassive black hole

June 16, 2016 by Mariëtte Le Roux, Laurence Coustal
Telescopes have never seen a black hole, and the world's brightest minds are unable to reconcile their core characteristics with some of the bedrock laws of nature

First postulated more than 230 years ago, black holes have been extensively researched, frequently depicted, even featured in sci-fi films.

We've all seen the artists' impressions and read of their ravenous star-gobbling feasts.

But here's the thing... science is still not 100 percent sure what they look like, how they behave or even that they exist.

Telescopes have never seen a black hole, and the world's brightest minds are unable to reconcile their core characteristics with some of the bedrock laws of nature.

Seeking answers, scientists have trained a massive telescope, named Gravity, in Chile on a point some 24,000 light years away where a is thought to lurk at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy.

The enormous eye will look for miniscule but telltale deviations in the movement of gas and stars swirling around the monster hole.

"The goal of Gravity is to finally prove the existence of a black hole at the centre of our galaxy," project member Guy Perrin, an astronomer from the Paris Observatory, told AFP.

But finding something unexpected would in some ways be an even bigger breakthrough as it may offer clues to our imperfect understanding of physics.

Sharper than ever

Gravity's theorised target, Sagittarius A, is four million times more massive than our Sun, packed into an area smaller than the Solar System.

To observe it up close, astronomers have combined the power of Europe's four largest telescopes, based in the Atacama desert, to create the most powerful instrument of its kind ever built.

Picture released by the European Space Agency (ESA) shows an artist impression of a possible seed for the formation of a supermassive black hole

The images will be "about 10-20 times sharper than what we had before," said project leader Frank Eisenhauer of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics.

With a combined diameter of about 130 metres (427 feet), the device will allow astronomers to observe more detail, closer to the black hole, than ever before.

"We will check whether our physical understanding is correct to conclude it is a black hole," Eisenhauer told AFP by telephone from Atacama, where the telescope is being put through its paces before starting full-scale observations, probably next year.

"If you see the motion of matter so close to a black hole, it would be very difficult to find any other explanation."

Black holes are regions in space-time where mass is collapsed into such a small area that takes over completely, and nothing can escape its pull.

Eighteenth century amateur clergyman and scientist John Michell is credited with conceptualising in 1783.

They were also predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, published in 1915.

There are two types: "" black holes that form when a monster star implodes, and the "supermassive" variety which lie at the centre of large galaxies.

Ubiquitous as they are believed to be—millions in the Milky Way galaxy alone—black holes are invisible because they absorb light, along with everything else.

Was Einstein wrong?

Their existence is inferred from the behaviour of objects nearby, including stars swirling around them as planets orbit our Sun.

Black holes were predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, published in 1915

Some scientists, including physicist Stephen Hawking, have suggested black holes—if they exist at all—may not fit the general relativity mould.

In February, evidence for stellar mass black holes emerged when scientists observed a gravitational wave—a ripple theorised to move through space-time when two of these beasts collide.

Each black hole, in Einstein's world, should have an "event horizon," a point of no return beyond which gravity takes over.

But a major problem in science today is that general relativity does not gel with quantum mechanics, the other pillar of modern physics.

Quantum physics perfectly describes phenomena on the minuscule, subatomic level, but gravity does not seem to work on that scale.

When it comes to black holes, general relativity predicts that nothing can escape them. Quantum theory, however, posits that no information from the Universe can ever just disappear.

By zooming in so close on the event horizon, "we will be able to test a number of theories in an environment with an extreme gravitational field," said Karine Perraut of the Grenoble Observatory in southeast France.

It will be the toughest test yet for , which has withstood all other science challenges.

For Einstein to be right, the Gravity team would have to see the stars' orbit change slightly with every full rotation around the black hole.

But what it would look like if Einstein was wrong, nobody knows.

"I can only imagine the shock if we cannot confirm that it is a black hole. It will have huge implications for our understanding of the Universe!" said Perrin.

Gravity started early operations in June and is expected to report on progress next week.

Explore further: Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

Related Stories

Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

April 7, 2016

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational ...

Where is the closest black hole?

March 21, 2016

You know that saying, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer?" That advice needs to go right out the window when we're talking black holes. They're the worst enemies you could have and you want them as far ...

Scientists find a new way to see inside black holes

June 15, 2016

Scientists at Towson University and the Johns Hopkins University are reporting a new way to peer through the event horizons around black holes and visualize what lies beneath. Their results could rewrite conventional ideas ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers witness galaxy megamerger

April 25, 2018

Peering deep into space—an astounding 90 percent of the way across the observable universe—astronomers have witnessed the beginnings of a gargantuan cosmic pileup, the impending collision of 14 young, starbursting galaxies.

Powerful flare detected on an M-dwarf star

April 25, 2018

An international team of astronomers reports the finding of ASASSN-18di—a powerful white-light superflare on a previously undetected, mid-type M-dwarf star. The discovery is detailed in a paper published April 12 on the ...

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2016
Gravity's theorised target, Sagittarius A, is four million times more massive than our Sun, packed into an area smaller than the Solar System.

Quite a bit smaller. At 44 million kilomemetrs diameter it would reach - if placed where our sun is - barely halfway to the orbit of Mercury (which is still a mother-huge sucker for a black hole)
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2016
Stephen J. Crothers is a certified crank. He only publishes in crank journals. He is a doctor of chiropractic because he flunked out of proctology school. And by the way, his crank certification is a cheap imitation done on paper from Office Depot with an obsolete home printer.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richardwenzel987
4 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2016
I don't see Oppenheimer sited, and that makes me suspicious. His work was seminal. People have complained about "division by zero", not understanding or appreciating the limit process in calculus. At any rate, your guy seems to be up against some very heavy hitters with superb credentials. Sorry about the rant. I don't like cranks.
andylasttry
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2016
Perhaps dividing by zero could be replaced by the plank length. gravity is talked about as a wave. It must have a minimum wave length. The gravity wave could be a archimedes screw shape, as opposed to the normal waves.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2016
Gravity waves aren't waves like on a sea; they're waves like light waves.
Solon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2016
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air including the theory of gravitation but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Einstein.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2016
I don't see Oppenheimer sited, and that makes me suspicious. ..... Sorry about the rant. I don't like cranks.

I believe the word you are wanting is "cited", and that makes me suspicious.
Sorry about the correction. I don't like ignoramuses.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 16, 2016
Stephen J. Crothers
sigh...
http://www.staff....ons.html

http://www.mathem...008.html

http://www.mathem...ews.html

http://www.mathem...508.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html

http://www.mathpa...h697.htm

selecting a known pseudoscience crank as evidence to support your theory is like putting a condom on after sex to prevent pregnancy
- it just aint gonna work
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2016
They must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole


....true, but the way they get around labeling Einstein a crackpot is with a constant unending drumbeat of claims that Einstein indeed did predict BHs in GR, but the same ones who make such claims will never provide details of the section of GR to substantiate the ludicrous claim. For example over on another thread I'm trying to get Schneib to Copy & Paste the exact section of GR where he claims Einstein predicted the existence of BHs, but he won't/can't do it, then he attempts me out to be some kind of crackpot because I challenge him to prove the claim that Einstein predicted the existence of BHs.

The short & long of it is, these BHers don't have a calculation by which a calculation can be made to create an infinite gravity well from a finite stellar mass, but they don't care about that, they love the fantasy of the narrative & that's all that matters to them.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2016
Thanks for that, @Cap'n.

I thought these were just a few cranks hanging out on physorg. I now see that they've been at real physicists, been skooled, and still haven't learned anything. I also see that they're a bunch of religious fanatic creationists, so it's no surprise to see them using the Gish Gallop.
Chris_Reeve
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
Einstein indeed did predict BHs in GR
You're making stuff up again here. Nobody claims that except in the broadest terms, and in fact they would back down from that claim and note that Schwarzchild was the one who found that GRT ***implies*** BHs by deriving a ***solution*** to the EFE that describes them if they were challenged.

This is the third time you're being told this. A couple more and I'll just go back to ignoring you.

create an infinite gravity well from a finite stellar mass
It's not an "infinite gravity well" any more than any other gravity well is. You're making stuff up again.

There is only so much one can say when their opponent begins lying. I choose merely to point it out and move on, and shortly I will cease the one and perform the other.

As far as your claims on the other thread, you have been answered. You won't like the answer, but it's correct so that doesn't particularly concern me. Now stop making stuff up.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
The short & long of it is, these BHers don't have a calculation by which a calculation can be made to create an infinite gravity well from a finite stellar mass, but they don't care about that, they love the fantasy of the narrative & that's all that matters to them.

I don't think anyone is claiming "infinite" gravity. Just really,really strong...
And now I just read DS's comment confirming ...:-)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
You know, a propos of all this stuff, I've found out that some pretty heavy hitters agree with something I've been saying for a long, long time which is that from the point of view of a distant observer, nothing ever passes the event horizon of a black hole. This is obvious if you examine gravitic time dilation; for the distant observer, time simply stops at the EH. The only material actually inside the BH, from the distant observer's POV, is that which was within the EH at the time its density became high enough to form the EH. Everything that's fallen into it since was compactified at the EH.

However, there is a subtlety here: as material accretes, the EH moves out past it. Thus, the picture we are left with is that material accretes on the EH, the mass of the BH increases, and the EH passes the compactified material. Nothing ever passes the EH; the EH passes it.
Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2016
You know, a propos of all this stuff, I've found out that some pretty heavy hitters agree with something I've been saying for a long, long time which is that from the point of view of a distant observer, nothing ever passes the event horizon of a black hole. This is obvious if you examine gravitic time dilation; for the distant observer, time simply stops at the EH. The only material actually inside the BH, from the distant observer's POV, is that which was within the EH at the time its density became high enough to form the EH. Everything that's fallen into it since was compactified at the EH.

However, there is a subtlety here: as material accretes, the EH moves out past it. Thus, the picture we are left with is that material accretes on the EH, the mass of the BH increases, and the EH passes the compactified material. Nothing ever passes the EH; the EH passes it.

THAT is deep...
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 17, 2016
I thought these were just a few cranks hanging out on physorg
@DaSchneib
welcome - i think only the one crothers crank is the educated in physics idiot... the others are simply local PO idiots who take anything printed on the web as gospel so long as it conforms to their delusional bias - and chris is yet another sock for a banhammered eu acolyte
You're making stuff up again
yeah, that's benji for ya
imagine that! she can't actually prove any claim !

check this out, D-
benji can't argue the maths period - here is her ODE fail (to Whyde et al-there are at least 2 others with furlong):
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

basic math & astronomy fail - look for "wobble cycle" and read the post! you'll laugh
http://phys.org/n...als.html

now you know what you are dealing with above... it's worse than you thought
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
@Cappy, I've been thinking about this and it's becoming apparent to me that what we're dealing with here is a gang of creationists mounting the same kind of assault against modern physics as their ilk have already against modern biology and against geophysics (AGW).

They use insults all the time, usually of the lowest type (childhood playground tactics and scatological or sexual references), denigrate anyone who disagrees in the most immature fashion, chop logic and fasten on irrelevancies, and outright lie on a regular basis and when challenged move to another lie (Gish Gallop).

And it occurs to me that at a certain point you have to ask what they're so scared of.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016

However, there is a subtlety here: as material accretes, the EH moves out past it. Thus, the picture we are left with is that material accretes on the EH, the mass of the BH increases, and the EH passes the compactified material. Nothing ever passes the EH; the EH passes it.

Would the EH be akin to Earth's crust? Atmosphere? Gravitational field? Magnetic field?
Trying to build a visual image here, so thanks (in advance) for any input...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
And it occurs to me that at a certain point you have to ask what they're so scared of.

It's the fear of not being significant...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2016
And it occurs to me that at a certain point you have to ask what they're so scared of
@DaSchneib
there is more to it, IMHO... first off, we know that the whole anti-AGW is funded, so for that part it is a paid service they're giving: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

but then we see that the same people tend to also be (as you note) creationists and more
so take a look at the backgrounds of the posters, their religion, politics and conspiracist ideation, then read this:
http://journals.p....0075637

one thing they fear is the disassembly of their delusional system because it's a religion

the internet is where religion comes to die, and for good reason: the access to information that invalidates it

... so their fear is very palpable on this particular front
they don't do science 'cause it's hard, so they "believe" in their [insert pseudoscience]
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
Would the EH be akin to Earth's crust?
Mathematically, somewhat, but only as a limiting location. And I'd say surface rather than crust.

Atmosphere? Gravitational field? Magnetic field?
One could advance similarities but none of them would be even as good as the one above.

Trying to build a visual image here, so thanks (in advance) for any input...:-)
Think of it as a shell within which all is obscured. And every time something falls on the shell, the shell gets a bit bigger and absorbs it.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (10) Jun 17, 2016
It's the fear of not being significant...
@Whyde
in a lot of ways... yes

it's also a fear of being eradicated, in a way... call it a "survival instinct"

one thing that science is known for is results: factual repeatable unbiased validated results

what is the one thing lacking in most of their claims?
repeatable unbiased validated results

what typically happens when you have a process or belief in science that is falsified?

they can understand this and feel the walls closing in... and for their limited fragile psyche it's a physical response causing stress b/c they know their belief is all bullsh*t and they got conned

so to mitigate their pain they attempt to spread it around to others who will also get suckered

not just to gain support socially, but because it is inevitable they will fail and be labeled
hence the multiple socks - feigned social acceptance with false numbers
it's easier to accept the lie when you think others are doing it

:-)
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
Okay.
Then to say, Earths surface to limit of gravitational effect (roughly 60 miles, I think) would be analogous to EH to actual compacted matter surrounding an actual BH...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
Preaching to the choir, @Cappy. I've been aware of the funding of these groups since before the turn of the century, aware of the science since the mid-1980s, and aware of the seriousness of the situation since the beginning of the 1990s. It is notable that the same tactics are shared by evolution deniers, AGW deniers, the tobacco companies, the big oil companies with regard to leaded gasoline, EU cranks and other relativity deniers, the Catholic Church during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.

And all of them have found out that you can only deny so long.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2016
Okay.
Then to say, Earths surface to limit of gravitational effect (roughly 60 miles, I think) would be analogous to EH to actual compacted matter surrounding an actual BH...
Whoa, what's the 60 miles for?

Remember also that previously spaghettified and compactified material disappears below the expanding EH. This is an extremely limited analogy; there is nothing that happens on Earth like it.

I usually think of a glowing shell that is Cerenkov blue surrounding a completely black interior; infalling matter approaches the shell but never touches it, but later infalling matter causes the shell to move out past the previously essentially frozen infall. What happens to the infall after that is inside the black, and about that we can know almost nothing further.

It is this sort of visualization that has led us to talk about the holographic nature of the event horizon. Everything we can know starts there; inside of that can only be mass and charge.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
b/c they know their belief is all bullsh*t and they got conned
The best cons leave the victim insisting they weren't swindled at all. That way the con men can come back for more.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2016
Ever see "The Grifters?" Anjelica Huston absolutely knocks it out of the park and breaks windows in the parking lot, and John Cusack and Annette Bening aren't far behind. Possibly Cusack's best movie so far; definitely Huston's. Much grittier and far less amusing than "The Sting," which nevertheless still has to remain a classic of the genre.

The scene with the bag of oranges is probably one of the best acted scenes I have ever had the pleasure to watch.

After you watch it you will understand why I bring it up here, @Cappy.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2016
long time which is that from the point of view of a distant observer, nothing ever passes the event horizon of a black hole.

That's a bit of a tricky one...because the only POV that counts for an object is that of the object itself (and from its own POV it does pass the event horizon. There's nothing special about that place in spacetime as far as it's concerned).

It is just that nothing that happens to it afterwards (from the objects POV) is observable by an outside and that the observables (photons) the object emanated until it passed the event horizon get stretched out to infinity (from the POV of the observer). It happily emits more later - but those aren't observable,

So the information of the *object* doesn't get stuck on the event horizon. Only the information until the point it crossed (from it's own POV) - and not even that (because most of it eventually reaches an observer
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
Thanks for that, @Cap'n.

I thought these were just a few cranks hanging out on physorg. I now see that they've been at real physicists, been skooled, and still haven't learned anything. I also see that they're a bunch of religious fanatic creationists, so it's no surprise to see them using the Gish Gallop


It's for sure the "cranks" can be identified here, they are the ones who imagine an "infinite gravity well" exists within the "finite mass" of a stellar body mislabeled Black Hole.

Schneibo, everytime I challenge you to produce a claim you make about your knowledge of General Relativity you launch into a song & dance routine that goes something like: "Well it's not exactly all that straight forward & you need to read in between the lines"

You simply get all bent out of shape anytime your enthusiasm for anything with a label of Dark/Black is challenged at any level. You imagine these funny farm fantasy things should be taken as "judicial notice".
ursiny33
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2016
Singularity does not exist in charged particles, on your quantum chart we classify particles positive charge,negative charge, or neutral no charge , the neutral should clue you in conception a neutral charged particle doesn't mean no charge it means an equal positive and negative quantum mass, , a particle classified positive does not mean 100 percent positive,it means a positive dominant with a minor negative,your instrument only reads the dominant charge not the minor charge, the very same with those classified negative charge its a dominant negative charge with a minor positive charge in quantum mass, even a neutrino, whom people say is mass less with no charge, is an equal charged quantum particle construction like a photon an equal charged construction, with a status of wave and mass, gravity is just a by product manufactured by concentrated charged particle mass in magnetic bonds to each other , in mass compression ,
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
All charged particles on any scale are either balanced charged particles or unbalanced charged particles those are the only kind of charged particles in existence
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
So in charge mass ,classified particles of no charge neutral are no zero its 1+1 one positive equal quantum mass that can be multiple parts that equal the other negative quantum mass of one that can be multiple parts
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
In unbalanced charged particle classified particles of negative or positive dominant charged particles on the quantum chart the dominant to minor ratio is 66.666 dominant 33.333 minor one third of the quantum mass difference between those unbalanced constructions,balanced particles are 50/50 in quantum charge mass like the photon and neutrino
bschott
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
You simply get all bent out of shape anytime your enthusiasm for anything with a label of Dark/Black is challenged at any level.


They all do Benni. You may as well be telling Muslims that Allah only exists on paper or a christian that God only exists on paper because there is no physical observation of them. The universe they claim only exists on paper. Hence bent out of shape when called on it.

Their failure to acknowledge how photons are generated/emitted lies at the heart of the lame brain Dark cosmology. Molecules and particles absorb and emit, particles also emit when they interact with a magnetic field. Any interpretation beyond that is based on the science the interpreter supports. If they want to continue to believe in particles who's only property is gravity, invisible sources of infinite gravity and the BB....let em. Laugh at em.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
Two unbalanced quantum charged particles together equal one plus one the equal of a balanced construction charge
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2016

It's for sure the "cranks" can be identified here, they are the ones who imagine an "infinite gravity well" exists within the "finite mass" of a stellar body mislabeled Black Hole.

The only person bringing up "infinite" gravity, here, is you.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2016
Gravity is not greater than the sum of the charged particle mass ,what's hard to understand about that concept, the mass manufactured gravity
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2016
They all do Benni. You may as well be telling Muslims that Allah only exists on paper or a christian that God only exists on paper because there is no physical observation of them. The universe they claim only exists on paper. Hence bent out of shape when called on it.

"Gravity" exists as a label for the observed phenomenon of attraction of mass' on a macro scale.. The mechanic of it is what the maths describe. Exactly? Only time will tell ...
Their failure to acknowledge how photons are generated/emitted lies at the heart of the lame brain Dark cosmology.

Explain, please.
particles also emit when they interact with a magnetic field.

Source?
If they want to continue to believe in particles who's only property is gravity...

No such thing.
Would you prefer the label "Unknown" to "Dark"?
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
Even in the electrical field of charged particles OHMs laws of taking 12 volts and transforming them to 12,000 volts the ampere drop by a thousand percent in that process but the to charges have the same electric mass and are equal in total electric states , how would a singularity manufacture mechanically more gravity than its mass of charged particles, please explain, that mechanical process
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
Whoa, what's the 60 miles for?

Gravitational effect disappears. weightlessness.

Remember also that previously spaghettified and compactified material disappears below the expanding EH. This is an extremely limited analogy; there is nothing that happens on Earth like it.

It did when Earth was clearing it's orbital debris field...

infalling matter causes the shell to move out past the previously essentially frozen infall. What happens to the infall after that is inside the black, and about that we can know almost nothing further.

More mass, larger gravitational field.
It is this sort of visualization that has led us to talk about the holographic nature of the event horizon. Everything we can know starts there; inside of that can only be mass and charge.

Kinda like Earth, eh...?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2016
Even in the electrical field of charged particles OHMs laws of taking 12 volts and transforming them to 12,000 volts the ampere drop by a thousand percent in that process but the to charges have the same electric mass and are equal in total electric states , how would a singularity manufacture mechanically more gravity than its mass of charged particles, please explain, that mechanical process

I dunno. Ask Tesla...
bschott
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
"Gravity" exists as a label for the observed phenomenon of attraction of mass' on a macro scale

Careful, I see none of the devout have come along to correct you that gravity is the curvature of "spacetime" which is how I have been "corrected" numerous times. But yeah...it is only a label.
Explain, please.

Thought I did
Any interpretation beyond that is based on the science the interpreter supports.

IOW, the belief that gravity causes everything to happen that we observe
particles also emit when they interact with a magnetic field.
Source?

Every photon produced by a particle that wasn't initiated by the absorption of another photon. This is a known aspect of physics, the "energy" which comprises particles doesn't contact in a collision, it is the particles field contacting the other particles field.
No such thing.

Yes, I know.
Would you prefer the label "Unknown" to "Dark"?

It isn't "matter" at all, so no I wouldn't.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
Charged particles are not taking a canoe ride over a waterfall , that zero intact atoms or photon can travel intact to the CCM ,the disk around the mass is the most violent kinetic storm of particles in the cosmos their is nothing but high velocity particle kinetic collisions for all incoming matter to the CCM those atoms approaching the super hot kinetic storm environment around that mass lose their orbiting electrons before they even get to that kinetic particle storm ,they get stripped off those atoms and suspended in orbit around that mass held by the mass's gravity only neutrons and protons out of nucleus approach that Strom and their all beaten apart into positrons and electrons to the mass
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
That's a bit of a tricky one...because the only POV that counts for an object is that of the object itself (and from its own POV it does pass the event horizon. There's nothing special about that place in spacetime as far as it's concerned).
I don't agree with your premise here. I think the rest of the universe's view of what happens is at least equally important if not moreso.

I agree that in the object's own proper time it does pass the EH, and that there's nothing more special about the EH than for any other observer. But I think that until it did it would observe some very strange phenomena if anyone on it looked out at the rest of the universe; too long to write up here. This is unlike the time dilation in SRT, where there is no way to resolve who's going slower. You should read Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps."
[contd]
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2016
In electrons and positron,even though the negative dominant single level electron has a quantum dominant charge of 66.666 percent negative charge mass and a minor 33.333 percent positive charge mass , the positron is the same but opposite, and its construction mass is 33.333 percent smaller than the electron, this enables those two charges to build multi level charged constructions together magnetically, a positron can attach itself to a single level electron,and still be a negatively dominant electron by quantum mass, but if two single level positrons get attached magnetically to a single level electron one on each side of the single level electron it becomes a three level magnetic construction electron with a positive dominant charge by quantum mass its to positrons together have 33.333 percent more charge mass than the single level electron in this magnetic construction that's how those charged particles build the building blocks to manufacture photon and neutrons and protons
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
So the information of the *object* doesn't get stuck on the event horizon. Only the information until the point it crossed (from it's own POV) - and not even that (because most of it eventually reaches an observer
Again, from whose POV? It's meaningless to talk about it from the object's POV in terms of total entropy, it only makes sense to talk about total entropy from the POV of the rest of the universe.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
Whoa, what's the 60 miles for?

Gravitational effect disappears. weightlessness.
No, this is incorrect. Sounding rockets that are sent over a hundred miles up, without taking up an orbit, fall back to the ground. You should do the math on this. Being in free fall because you're in orbit is different from the gravitational effect disappearing.

Consider being in an aircraft at ten miles' altitude (50,000 feet). There is no strong difference in the force of gravity between that and being on the ground. Sure, you could measure a slight difference, but you'd need an atomic clock. You should run the numbers on this. I can go find the equations if you want to check it out. It's Newton's Universal Gravitation law; that should let you look them up for yourself. (TUG is sufficient here; in a weak field like Earth's, it differs very little from GRT.)
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
Remember also that previously spaghettified and compactified material disappears below the expanding EH. This is an extremely limited analogy; there is nothing that happens on Earth like it.
It did when Earth was clearing it's orbital debris field...
Not really. The Earth's field isn't strong enough to spaghettify infalling space ships, see Apollo among many others, nor meteorites.

You need to go back and think this through more carefully. Like @antialias, I think you need to read that book by Thorne. You'd definitely get a lot out of it. There is a lot going on around a black hole that simply doesn't happen around Earth. Our field isn't strong enough to cause it.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2016
A two level electron of a positron and a single level electron still is a dominant negative electron but added to a three level two single level positrons and a single level electron make a positive dominant electron but magnetically bound they make an equal charge quantum mass the photon with 3 single level positrons and 2 single level electrons magnetically bound
ursiny33
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2016
Single level quantum charged constructions of positrons and electrons can work together magnetically to build two level and three level quantum charged constructions of electrons to make the magnetic building blocks for constructing photon, neutrons and protons
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
[contd]
Remember also that previously spaghettified and compactified material disappears below the expanding EH. This is an extremely limited analogy; there is nothing that happens on Earth like it.
It did when Earth was clearing it's orbital debris field...
Not really. The Earth's field isn't strong enough to spaghettify infalling space ships, see Apollo among many others, nor meteorites.

I understand. I just look for basic similarities while realizing there are operational differences due to scale. I'm also understanding that the EH is not an exact point. More like a "fuzzy" boundary...
You need to go back and think this through more carefully. Like @antialias, I think you need to read that book by Thorne. You'd definitely get a lot out of it. There is a lot going on around a black hole that simply doesn't happen around Earth. Our field isn't strong enough to cause it.

Ahh, to have the time...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
Whoa, what's the 60 miles for?

Gravitational effect disappears. weightlessness.
No, this is incorrect. Sounding rockets that are sent over a hundred miles up, without taking up an orbit, fall back to the ground. You should do the math on this. Being in free fall because you're in orbit is different from the gravitational effect disappearing.

Okay. I stand corrected on that point. But, isn't gravity actually a distance gradient field? At SOME point Earth's gravitation effect must be lessened to a point of non-effectual...
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2016
I don't agree with your premise here. I think the rest of the universe's view of what happens is at least equally important.

Time doesn't slow down for the object itself. An observer riding along with the object will see everything in his vicinity going at normal rates. He will still emit photons (and will measure them to be at the speed of light) and all other processes will work as normal as long as the gravitational gradient isn't too strong (which it isn't with the larger black holes at the event horizon). he doesn't stop at the event horizon nor does he see himself slowing down as he approaches the event horizon (and he will hit the singularity within a finite amount of time)

wikipedia:
"The traveling object, however, experiences no strange effects and does, in fact, pass through the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. From here to the central singularity will take 0.0001 seconds in proper time, in free fall, for a 30 solar mass black hole."
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2016
Nothing of that last ride gets outside. Any information change within that last 0.0001 seconds will never be seen by an observer...so the object cannot be encoded in its final state on the event horizon.

Yes, the trip would look bizarre (there are some really cool simulations out there)
The game Elite does a good job of simulating it (and boy ist it an experience the first time you hyperspace right next to Saggitarius A*...luckily black holes don't kill you in game)
https://www.youtu...fE2NMVl4
(all the points on screen are surrounding stars whose positions get distorted by the gravitational effect)

This guy actually jumps into a black hole..scary stuff
https://www.youtu...GnkHc6nI
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2016
Whoa, what's the 60 miles for?

Gravitational effect disappears. weightlessness.
No, this is incorrect. Sounding rockets that are sent over a hundred miles up, without taking up an orbit, fall back to the ground. You should do the math on this. Being in free fall because you're in orbit is different from the gravitational effect disappearing.

Okay. I stand corrected on that point. But, isn't gravity actually a distance gradient field? At SOME point Earth's gravitation effect must be lessened to a point of non-effectual...
Sure, but that has to be past the orbit of the Moon, otherwise it wouldn't orbit, right? And that's 400,000 km, 250,000 miles or so.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2016
@antialias, you're gonna make me re-read that Kip Thorne book in self-defense!

;)
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2016
@Schneib, try https://en.wikipe...l_sphere

Basically in order for a rocket to go straight up, and not come back to Earth, you'd need to leave Earth's Hill Sphere and enter another body's.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2016
@matt, very nice. @Whyde, there you go.

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.