Is the event horizon all there is to a black hole?

[Frog march]

If an event happens 1million light years away, say a meteor collides with a planet, and there are aliens there to record and send a video to their home planet(which is 10LYs behind us) and we eventually will pick up their signal. Has the event actually happened here on Earth?
Or can an event only be said to have happened when information about that event CAN reach us?


If light and hence information can't get out from within a black hole, does that information actually inside?

My suggestion is that there is no "inside" of a black hole, and that all information is stored at the even horizon, like, to us, the writing of shakespeare on the skin of a balloon. And in reality, inside the BH is non-space, a big spherical(approx) ball of non space, but in reality, non cheese hole, in an edam cheesy universe, where the event horizon IS like, to us the edge of the Universe.

Perhaps, to something falling into a BH, say a Rubik cube. That Rubik cube is an information system, from the pattern of colours on its face, to the molecules that make it up.
So when the Rubik cube falls into a BH, that information system enters the surface information system of the event horizon, and in someways perhaps carries on existing, well the information anyway.

So the Event Horizon as information system, beyond which there is nothing, just non-space?


would space-time have the same shape if all the mass were stored at the event horizon?

Would this account for BHs having angular momentum?

[Frog march]

I just had a thought.

If light and information can only go into a black hole, and as relativity says that light is a constant velocity for any object. Then, as a physical object represents an information system, all matter is rendered impossible beyond the event horizon....?

Maybe radiation could exist, but not matter?

So maybe this backs up my idea...

[Frog march]

I just had another idea.

Due to the uncertainty principal, the surface of the event horizon would be uncertain too, wouldn't it. If so, the information stored there could be in a 3 dimensional system.
which I'm guessing would make things easier.

[Celestial Mechanic]

The entropy (practically synonymous with information) of a black hole is proportional to the area of the event horizon, so this is not such a wacky idea.

The current consensus is that a black hole can only have mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. It does not have strong charge, weak charge, baryon number or lepton number of any kind. (That is what is meant by "a black hole has no hair".) Perhaps (not really sure) this information is "left" somehow on or near the exterior of the event horizon.

If the black hole is non-rotating (which I think is highly unlikely) the event horizon would be a sphere. In this case spherical symmetry would hold and the gravitational field would have it too. I do not know, however, if GR shares with Newtonian gravity the indistinguishability between a shell of mass or a point-mass at the center for regions outside the shell.

[Argos]

Due to the uncertainty principal, the surface of the event horizon would be uncertain too, wouldn't it.

The undcertainty principle relates to particle physics, the realm of the very small, whereas the EH is a General Relativity concept, which explains the macro scale structures. Both domains are incompatible, and still await unification.

[Frog march]

an experiment(well in thought any way): if there is no space inside the event horizon, the gravity waves, or at least gravity(what ever that is) would either just skip hop or jump through the eventhorizon volume of the BH, in which case it would arrive earlier than if it passed through it as normal, OR in some way it goes around, using the possible eventhorizon system shell, in which case it will arrive later. And as hopping through would violate the speed of light(wouldn't it?) then it might have to go through the shell, being slower.

Perhaps this would affect the orbit of objects in a binary black hole system, if such systems exist.

[Frog march]

The undcertainty principle relates to particle physics, the realm of the very small, whereas the EH is a General Relativity concept, which explains the macro scale structures. Both domains are incompatible, and still await unification.

But, in theory, if you could know exactly where a blackhole was and its velocity(and mass), then you could deduce those bits of information about a quantum sized particle entering a black hole.

So a black hole must have an uncertainty about this information, in the same manner, surely?

[Argos]

In fact, maybe you´re referring to the information paradox.

[Frog march]

That's interesting, I'll try to read more from that link later.

I just had an idea, that if a BH was really massive then would the forces near the event horizon be enough to destroy an object?

if not then maybe matter and objects just pass into the event horizon information system, and someone who did this wouldn't even experience any change. The system of their body and space craft would remain undamaged forever. Perhaps this would mean that Hawking radiation wouldn't exist for really massive BHs. Starting to ramble now.

[Argos]

I´d say a really massive BH would present small tidal forces at the vicinity of the EH. It´s possible that you could cross a supermassive BH´s EH without even noticing!

Tidal forces near the EH would be true only for smaller [more dense - mass divided by the Schwarzschild volume] Black Holes.

[antoniseb]

The radius of the event horizon goes up linearly with the mass.
The tidal forces go down as one over the cube of the radius.

By the time you're talking about a ten billion solar mass black hole, the tidal force at the event horizon could be pretty minimal.

[Argos]

The smallest possible Black Hole [I mean, a stellar mass Black Hole] is the one that will have the strongest tidal forces in the vicinities of the EH. Indeed, when it comes to tidal forces no place compares to the surroundings of a neutron star.

[slang]

It´s possible that you could cross a supermassive BH´s EH without even noticing!

Until you turn around and try to go back, I presume.

[RussT]

If the black hole is non-rotating (which I think is highly unlikely)

Would you care to put a sigma level/% on that "highly unlikely"???

[Svemir]

I´d say a really massive BH would present small tidal forces at the vicinity of the EH. It´s possible that you could cross a supermassive BH´s EH without even noticing!

Tidal forces near the EH would be true only for smaller [more dense - mass divided by the Schwarzschild volume] Black Holes.

I would like to know more about Black Holes with different density.
What is thought to be the range of the density for Black Holes spectrum?
Can we extrapolate Black Hole's Equation of State from its density?

[RussT]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
If the black hole is non-rotating (which I think is highly unlikely)

Originally Posted by RussT
Would you care to put a sigma level/% on that "highly unlikely"???

Evidently not. We wouldn't want to upset the proberbial applecart!

[Tim Thompson]

Would you care to put a sigma level/% on that "highly unlikely"??

Well, I don't know about Celestial Mechanic, but I would guess about 100-sigma. I doubt that there is even a single truly non-rotating black hole anywhere in the universe. Some of the super massive black holes might rotate slowly enough to reasonably approximate non-rotating black holes, but that's as close as it gets.

What is thought to be the range of the density for Black Holes spectrum? Can we extrapolate Black Hole's Equation of State from its density?

Black holes have neither density, nor an equation of state, in the classical sense. Black holes are regions of spacetime, not simple objects. Theory tells us that black holes have only mass, angular momentum and electric charge. You would think that mass & volume imply density, and you could indeed do the arithmetic and get a density, but it would not be meaningful. It would be like drawing a box around Earth, dividing the mass of Earth by the volume of the box and getting a density. It really isn't the density of anything except the imaginary box.

There are cosmological equations of state, which correlate the properties of spacetime in much the same way as a more ordinary equation of state works for matter & energy in spacetime. But since we really don't know what the spacetime inside the event horizon of a black hole really looks like, its true equation of state remains to be determined (i.e., Nieuwenhuizen, 2008; Chou, Soo & Yu, 2007; Elizalde & Hildebrandt, 2002; Magli, 1999 & etc.).

[RussT]

Well, I don't know about Celestial Mechanic, but I would guess about 100-sigma.

Yeah, me too... and I agree with the 100-sigma and not even 99-sigma.

Now, how do I make this so it is not confrontational? I don't know how, because I have tried everything I can think of over long periods of time, and somehow, when I just suggest that something is most likely the way things are working, it get's waved off, and then when I suggest strongly, that it IS the correct way to model it, it get's challenged, and then when I say this is the way it must be modeled, Tensor wants "Proof"

So, let me ask you this Tim. Do you then also think that all accretion discs, surrounding/above SMBH event horizons, should then also be rotating/spinning?

I obviously don't know this, but, I am assuming from....Some of the super massive black holes might rotate slowly enough to reasonably approximate non-rotating black holes, but that's as close as it gets....this statement, that you are going to try and say that using a Schwarzschild solution is a 'close enough' approximation?

That has huge problems. Plus...

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05...of-relativity/

Black holes have neither density, nor an equation of state, in the classical sense. Black holes are regions of spacetime, not simple objects.

You would think that mass & volume imply density, and you could indeed do the arithmetic and get a density, but it would not be meaningful. It would be like drawing a box around Earth, dividing the mass of Earth by the volume of the box and getting a density. It really isn't the density of anything except the imaginary box.

And if you are willing, we can have a conversation about SMBH's, and since this ATM, could explore some alternatives that can help fingure these two satements out.

Theory tells us that black holes have only mass, angular momentum and electric charge.

Where one part to that could have to do with this...

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06...ull-in-matter/

New data from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory shows that a black hole's powerful magnetic field creates a turbulence in surrounding matter that helps drive it inward to be consumed.

Now, I am not so sure about the consumed part, but the huge magnetic field could be telling us something very important.

[Tim Thompson]

So, let me ask you this Tim. Do you then also think that all accretion discs, surrounding/above SMBH event horizons, should then also be rotating/spinning?

Yes.

I obviously don't know this, but, I am assuming from....Some of the super massive black holes might rotate slowly enough to reasonably approximate non-rotating black holes, but that's as close as it gets....this statement, that you are going to try and say that using a Schwarzschild solution is a 'close enough' approximation?
That has huge problems. Plus... http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05...of-relativity/

Interesting, I had not thought of supermassive black holes rotating quite so fast. Aside from the UT link given here, the research paper is Brenneman & Reynolds, 2006. But note that they do not actually measure rotation; rather, they measure the width of the broad iron k-alpha line, and fit the observations to a model where the line is broad because it is seen in reflection off of a portion of the accretion disk that is affected by frame dragging. That's how they derive a high confidence level for rapid rotation. But see Miller, Turner & Reeves, 2008. They point out that the interpretation of Brenneman & Reynolds, that the line is seen in reflection, should produce significant variability that is not seen. While Brenneman & Reynolds use only XMM data, Miller, Turner & Reeves use the XMM data plus data from several other sources, including Suzaku & Chandra, and show that the entire data set is equally well fit by an absorption system that does not include a relativistic rotation. So one cannot simply assert that the supermassive black hole is in fact rotating with such a high speed. The science thus far is of mixed opinion on that point.

Yes, for some purposes a Schwarzschild solution probably is quite good enough. It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are doing something affected by frame dragging, then obviously a static Schwarzschild assumption will not do. On the other hand, if all you need to know is the apparent size of the black hole as seen from here, then a static Schwarzschild solution is probably good enough, as you are hardly likely to be able to see the difference.

Now, I am not so sure about the consumed part, but the huge magnetic field could be telling us something very important.

What, in particular do you think it is telling us?

Now, how do I make this so it is not confrontational? I don't know how, because I have tried everything I can think of over long periods of time, and somehow, when I just suggest that something is most likely the way things are working, it get's waved off, and then when I suggest strongly, that it IS the correct way to model it, it get's challenged, and then when I say this is the way it must be modeled, Tensor wants "Proof"

Aren't those proof guys always so annoying? Maybe you get waved off because what you say is really a lot less interesting than you think it is? Stranger things have happened you know.

[John Mendenhall]

Aren't those proof guys always so annoying? Maybe you get waved off because what you say is really a lot less interesting than you think it is? Stranger things have happened you know.

Um, yes. Magnetic fields sound like a lead-in to endlessly collapsing BH's. See Chris on the Wiki article.

Regards, John M.

[RussT]

Um, yes. Magnetic fields sound like a lead-in to endlessly collapsing BH's. See Chris on the Wiki article.

Regards, John M.

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06...ull-in-matter/
fixed;

Geeeezzzzz, John...LOL.

I will accept your apology for jumping to conclusions before even asking for it...

Read the article again...there is not even a hint of ECO?MECO in there...

ERA: And, the article was even written by our own Frazer Cain..

[RussT]

Aren't those proof guys always so annoying?

I was orginally refering to Tensors usual 'stuff'...

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...-thread-2.html
From Post #31 on...

Where Tensor required 'proof' of the two things you are now finally admitting should have a 100-sigma, which I have been saying for a very long time now.

1. That there are NO non-rotating black holes in our universe.
2, that all accretion discs must therefore be rotating.

Maybe you get waved off because what you say is really a lot less interesting than you think it is? Stranger things have happened you know.

Originally Posted by RussT
Yes, it most certainly is, especially when you consider that the formation/creation of SMBH's is NOT due to the collapse of baryonic Matter...

In Q&A, in the Milky Way SMBH thread, I wrote the above.

You responded with...

You should avoid presenting your own unfounded & unreasonable suppositions as if they were facts.

As far as I know, I am the first on the planet to have 'hypothesized' this, based on a very strong correlation that I found approximately 3 years ago.

Since then I have extended this to multiple lines of evidence that are all necessary to show how this works. All of what I have developed is extremely consistent, and I understand how all this fits together much more deeply than you think I do.

IF, the universe is working as an "Open System", Then things are VERY different than current thinking, AND Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein, never even had a prayer of being able to mathematize how nature is 'really' working'.

Obviously, Some of those maths have been very useful, BUT...

In addition, AFAIK, I am the first person on this planet, to show a universe level "Above' our, where in that universe, there are a whole unverse full of SMBH's just like ours, and that 'something' can 'go STRAIGHT through' 'ring singularities'...to give us OUR SPACE.

Your "Communication between Universes"
Lee SMolin's "Constant at the "Pit" of Black Holes"
Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" to our universe.

SO, here is what I would like to discuss...

Einstein and Nathan Rosen, both at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, wanted to rid physics of singularities--points where mathematical quantities become infinite or otherwise ill-defined-

[Lepton]

You might find Decoding The Universe by Charles Seife to be an interesting read.

[Frog march]

SO, here is what I would like to discuss...

Einstein and Nathan Rosen, both at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, wanted to rid physics of singularities--points where mathematical quantities become infinite or otherwise ill-defined-

from my other thread, I had the idea that for black holes of mass zero, in a dying star, there is at least the offer of infinite Hawking radiation, and thus the evacuation, at the limit of the formation of a black hole, of all the matter within the event horizon, via Hawking radiation, thus preventing a singularity.

Is this idea feasible?


eta: further to this idea, I have the mental image of an expanding shell which converts and compresses matter to its limits, of a 2Dimensional surface(rather than a singularity). The information contained in that matter being stored as 2dimensional information, on a surface that experiences no time, and could be seen as a boundary to the outside Universe, due to that information being accessible from both sides of that surface.

This IS atm, isn't it?

[Tensor]

....and then when I say this is the way it must be modeled, Tensor wants "Proof"

Aren't those proof guys always so annoying? ....

I had no intention of being annoying. And, I haven't actualy demanded proof. It's not my fault that RussT couldn't provide adequate support and/or an indication that he understood the basic theories well enough to support what he was claiming. I could go back through and list the questions I had that he wasn't able to provide adequate answers to, but since all those threads were closed, it really doesn't matter. I'm just answering this becuase I don't want other posters thinking I was demanding support, for his ATM ideas, for no reason.

[RussT]

And, I haven't actualy demanded proof

Where exactly in your reply is the answer about the spin rate. I see intimation that it may be spinning, but nothing that shows, without a doubt, that it is spinning. You claimed proof, where exactly is that proof.

http://www.bautforum.com/1247710-post32.html

All Tim did was give his 'authority' to the question I asked Celestial Mechanic if cared to put a %/sigma ot his 'very unlikely'.

He could easily have said 95/98/99-sigma, which should be overwhelmingly Against ANY non-rotating black holes, stellar or SMBH's.

BUT, he gave it 100%.

SO, Tensor, Tim didn't give any links or other corroberative evidence, he just said he thinks it is 100%.

SO, why aren't you asking him for all the examples that you asked me for?

or an indication that he understood the basic theories well enough to support what he was claiming.

STOP!!! I understand perfectly!!!

Just because I am showing a different cause and effect, does NOT mean that I don't!!!

[Tensor]

http://www.bautforum.com/1247710-post32.html

All Tim did was give his 'authority' to the question I asked Celestial Mechanic if cared to put a %/sigma ot his 'very unlikely'.

He could easily have said 95/98/99-sigma, which should be overwhelmingly Against ANY non-rotating black holes, stellar or SMBH's.

BUT, he gave it 100%.

What?????? This is a perfect "RussT doesn't understand" example. I suggest you go find something that explains the difference between percentages and sigma levels.

SO, Tensor, Tim didn't give any links or other corroberative evidence, he just said he thinks it is 100%.

SO, why aren't you asking him for all the examples that you asked me for?

Because he said he thinks, he didn't make it a flat out claim. Shall we go back to my request for support? It's post #27, with your statement from post #23.

In 70 + years, mainstream science has NEVER found even one, Non-rotating Black Hole to apply the Schwarzschild Maths to, and therefore the "Point Singularity" Maths are moot. UNTIL one is found...................

Is the SMBH in M31 spinning and if it is, what exactly is the spin rate?"

See, you made a flat statement that every black hole that we've found is spinning, all I asked for was support for that statement.

What makes it all the worse, was the "support" you presented was nothing more the the movement of stars around that black hole, which is not the black hole's spin rate. You confused the spin rate of the black hole with the revolution speed of the stars around the black hole. Another example of your "understanding"

STOP!!! I understand perfectly!!!

Yes, you "understand" the difference between sigma levels and percentages, you "understand" the difference between spin rates of black holes and revolution speeds of stars around black holes, and to pull another of your "understandings" from earlier postings in this forum, you weren't aware that a singularity was where the equations broke down. So, exactly why should we believe you when you keep protesting you understand perfectly?

Just because I am showing a different cause and effect, does NOT mean that I don't!!!

Yet, interestingly, you have yet to provide any mathematical support to validate that different cause and effect. People have kept asking, and all you do is keep posting mostly out of context quotations. The strongest support you posted, the paper for your correlations for GRBs, was undermined when I asked you to refute another paper by the same author of your support paper (and serveral other papers by different authors which came to the same conlusion), which showed that we don't see over 500 GRBs a day. This throws your correlation out the window. Yet, you didn't refute either the math or logic of those papers.

Now, I'm not the only one harping on this. Celestial Mechanic, in post #25 of that same thread, pointed out severeal points where you were wrong and also asked you several questions that you didn't even bother to answer. Rule 13 points out that people here will rip your ideas here. If you don't like it, you might want to rethink posting it. And pointing out misunderstandings that render your idea wrong are valid. After all, if your idea is built on a misconception, then your idea is wrong.

[Tim Thompson]

SO, here is what I would like to discuss ... Einstein and Nathan Rosen, both at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, wanted to rid physics of singularities -- points where mathematical quantities become infinite or otherwise ill-defined-

So, discuss it! Do keep in mind that this is one of the primary goals in theoretical physics today. String theory, loop quantum gravity, and other theories of quantum gravity are all serious attempts to get rid of singularities. And your point is ... what?

[John Mendenhall]

So, discuss it! Do keep in mind that this is one of the primary goals in theoretical physics today. String theory, loop quantum gravity, and other theories of quantum gravity are all serious attempts to get rid of singularities. And your point is ... what?

Here? Isn't this Froggy's thread?

Regards, John M.

[Frog march]

Here? Isn't this Froggy's thread?

Regards, John M.

well, he wasn't talking to me there.


eta: I seem to have posted on the wrong thread :/