The Formation of Black Holes: my theory

[Frog march]

The formation of a Black Hole: my ATM theory.

When some stars die, I gather that they end up not having enough energy to keep their density below a critical level.
My idea is that, at this point hundreds, maybe thousands or millions, of point reach the pauli limit of density, or lets assume that the, zero volume, zero mass, points within the star become mini- black holes, at which point Hawking radiation kicks in with a zero length of time burst, of infinite energy.
This is the mathematical limit of the formation of a black hole, and from this point on as the black hole expands, it could be said to contain zero matter, due to the fact that the Hawking radiation is coming down from a maximum radiation energy level of infinite, and at this limit, ALL the matter within the seed black hole is being radiated away as energy in the Hawking radiation.
So from the very start, and as it expands, there is zero matter within the boundary of the event horizon.
But the black hole has absorbed matter and so this matter must still exist. Well everything that WASN’T radiated away in HR. And my theory is that this matter exists as an exotic material, at the limit of density, set by the Pauli limit, as a shell at the event horizon radius.
I think, that to an observer, in the Universe, that shell has depth, because of the uncertainty principal, and so has volume.
I think that the volume(based on the two radiuses due to the uncertainty of that matter), the density(set at the limit) and the radius of the event horizon are all interrelated, although I haven’t got the knowledge to work out the equations.
My idea is that, if matter can’t exist within the event horizon, then the space within that event horizon is non-existent, which means that you have a sphere of radius r made purely by the shell of the exotic, limit, material, being observed as a sphere of radius R, where R is much larger than r.
This leads me to think that matter that exists at the limit of density is equivalent to space-time, as observed by someone outside the black hole event horizon.
So anything that falls into the black hole, is just converted to this material, and thus space-time, and thus increases the observed volume of the BH.
Hawking radiation, under my theory, need not use quantum tunnelling, but is the conversion of this space-time-matter, into ordinary matter(or is it EM radiation?), at the surface.
This idea also accounts for the conservation of angular momentum, in that the BH is a physical object with volume, although I’m not sure if that angular motion is conserved as a sphere of radius r, or R. I’m not sure.
If this theory were true, I think that it might link quantum physics, at the pauli limit of density for matter, with Relativity, as the limit matter also being equivalent to space-time.

I dunno, a bit ATM I know, but it makes sence to me. What do you think?

I have some other thoughts that lead from this, based on the idea of matter being equivalent to space-time, and uncertainty maps for this matter stretching into space. My other theory, for gravity, called the sum of space-time-matter uncertainty theory. J
Also some thoughts about the interaction between frames of reference via the interaction between light and space-time-matter (and thus space-time-matter and virtual light). This relationship would HAVE to be in ALL directions and thus would imply that, if space-time-matter frames of reference interacted with similar S-T-M frames of reference, in all directions, then the Universe would have to be some sort of boundary less, closed system..

[Frog march]

a further idea: based on the above, the black hole is a 3dimension object with volume, but to me this doesn't make sense when thinking about the surface evaporation of Hawking radiation. So my next idea is that although this space-time-matter has volume to an observer in this Universe, to someone outside the universe, the BH would exist as a 2 dimensional surface, a sphere type object, due to the uncertainty principal being a property ONLY for people within the Universe, and THIS would actually be the boundary of the universe. Weird.

All the BHs in the universe would form a strange topological( though I'm not sure if those surfaces would be connected) boundary with what ever else existed.

[Frog march]

further to this idea: if that boundary was with the outside of the universe, then for that boundary time is non existant, and thus would contain all the information that ever was, and ever would be about that black hole.

From this point of view, if the end faite of the Universe is to be a giant black hole or a bunch of black holes, then maybe all the information that ever was, in the universe would be represented on this blackhole timeless surface/boundary, so that anyone outside the Universe could have access to everything that ever was about the universe, certainly all the information that ever entered a black hole.

[Frog march]

So to us, the black hole would appear as a sphere of radius R, but was really a sphere of radius r(r being smaller), which from outside the Universe was really just a 2dimensional surface.

It has the ring of truth hay?

[Frog march]

Maybe I should stop adding to this thread, but it occurred to me that if all information that ever entered a BH was stored on a surface, accessible, to the outside universe, the maybe that surface is just a boundary, with something else, external to the Universe, and that if one could approach and become part of a BH, say a really massive one, that didn't destroy you, then maybe you could, indeed, leave this Universe, unharmed, just like that sci-fi film and the old idea about traveling to another universe.

[Tensor]

Frog March, with all your recent threads, you really need to get Kip Thorne's "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy". It will explain Black Holes about as well as can be done, without the math, and it will correct a lot of your misconceptions about Black Holes.

[Michael Noonan]

Maybe I should stop adding to this thread, but it occurred to me that if all information that ever entered a BH was stored on a surface, accessible, to the outside universe, the maybe that surface is just a boundary, with something else, external to the Universe, and that if one could approach and become part of a BH, say a really massive one, that didn't destroy you, then maybe you could, indeed, leave this Universe, unharmed, just like that sci-fi film and the old idea about traveling to another universe.

By all means keep adding to the thread. If black holes have captured the imagination of the world's best minds then there is no reason why you don't deserve to be just as keenly interested.

[Frog march]

Frog March, with all your recent threads, you really need to get Kip Thorne's "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy". It will explain Black Holes about as well as can be done, without the math, and it will correct a lot of your misconceptions about Black Holes.

yeah, I might just get that.


But could you just answer the section of my idea about the Hawking radiation being infinite at the point where the mass of the black hole is zero.

I looked up the equation for Hawking radiation an it is

HR= h*c*c*c/(16*pi*G*M)

where I am gather M means the mass of the black hole.

So from this equation, Hawking radiation IS infinite(theoretically) at the point where the mass is zero.

If that is the starting point then doesn't it make sense that as the BH expands all the mass that would have been inside the event horizon, is radiated away? leaving nothing actually inside the event horizon shell?

[Hornblower]

yeah, I might just get that.


But could you just answer the section of my idea about the Hawking radiation being infinite at the point where the mass of the black hole is zero.

I looked up the equation for Hawking radiation an it is

HR= h*c*c*c/(16*pi*G*M)

where I am gather M means the mass of the black hole.

So from this equation, Hawking radiation IS infinite(theoretically) at the point where the mass is zero.

If that is the starting point then doesn't it make sense that as the BH expands all the mass that would have been inside the event horizon, is radiated away? leaving nothing actually inside the event horizon shell?

In this thread,
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1297754
a number of posters pointed out that according to Hawking's theory, the radiation is quantized. In that case the simple equation is an approximation that breaks down at the scale of subatomic particles.

Do believe that the radiation is not quantized? If so, why?

[Frog march]

I've been thinking about this, and I'm starting to think that the Hawking Radiation part doesn't make too much sense.

But maybe matter does only reach the limit of density, where it does become equivalent to space-time.
I'm not sure.

Any way, I've ordered the book that Tensor suggested.
I like Hawking's writing(supposed to be the co-author) anyway, so it should be a good read.

[Tensor]

I've been thinking about this, and I'm starting to think that the Hawking Radiation part doesn't make too much sense.

But maybe matter does only reach the limit of density, where it does become equivalent to space-time.
I'm not sure.

M is the mass of the black hole. And you're right about that being the starting point. It is thought that a black hole somewhere by itself in the universe would eventually radiate itself away. Formula to calculate this is:

T = 5120piG[sup]2[/supM_o²/hbarc⁴

where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the hole, hbar is the reduced Panck's constant and c is of course, the speed of light. For a solar sized hole, it would take approx 10⁶⁷ years to evaportate, which is far higher than the currenttly thought lifetime of the universe. And this is based on nothing falling into the hole, this includes the CMB. So, you can see that it would take quite a bit of time to radiate away to nothing.

Any way, I've ordered the book that Tensor suggested.
I like Hawking's writing(supposed to be the co-author) anyway, so it should be a good read.

He is not the coauther. He did some checking on some of the chapters for Thorne. The book is written in a breezy, freindly style and explains black holes, by explaining the history of the thought behind black holes. For instance, Laplace in 1795 described black holes from a Newtonian perspective. It has some interesting features that I'll let you discover in the book.

[Frog march]

In this thread,
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ml#post1297754
a number of posters pointed out that according to Hawking's theory, the radiation is quantized. In that case the simple equation is an approximation that breaks down at the scale of subatomic particles.

Do believe that the radiation is not quantized? If so, why?

maybe what I was getting at was that, right from the word go, of the formation of a black hole. That the potential for an infinite(well at the limit) amount of energy to be radiated out from the event horizon, that there is no creation of a singularity.

Even if the radiation is quantisized, the matter and energy would be shoveled out, from within the event horizon, leaving the more classical model of what was happening, ie the formation of an event horizon, which matter existing as a shell of exotic space-time-matter.(the second part, obviously ATM). A shell surrounding a volume of space that does not exist.

And then you have a model of what actually would appear to be happening, if you could observe it.
That is, you would get growing spheres of exotic space-time matter that combine, by the trillion, inside a dying star, to form eventually a large sphere of this exotic material, every point within which, could be considered to be ON the event horizon(from the out side anyway). A bit odd I know.

I once read that it was being considered that some sort of exotic material existed, in place of a singularity. Which lead me to consider that I may not be so far off the beaten track.

One thing I like about this idea is, that for Hawking radiation to work, bits of the space-time material just return to being more conventional material, break off and just radiate away.


If something fell into this space-time material, information wise, and from the perspective of the object, although it would be converted to space-time matter, epistemologically or as a sytem of information, or as a reference frame, it perhaps might carry on existing as a piece of matter. So all previous explanations and understandings of what goes on within the event horizon, might STILL apply.
Although I'm not sure about a singularity.....

[Lepton]

HR= h*c*c*c/(16*pi*G*M)

where I am gather M means the mass of the black hole.

So from this equation, Hawking radiation IS infinite(theoretically) at the point where the mass is zero.

Division by 0 is undefined so how would M being equal to 0 be anything theoretically? Couldn't I just as well say if M = 0 then the Hawking Radiation would be any value between 0 and infinity?

[Frog march]

Division by 0 is undefined so how would M being equal to 0 be anything theoretically? Couldn't I just as well say if M = 0 then the Hawking Radiation would be any value between 0 and infinity?

Yes, that's fine.

that would be like a bank manager with infinite sums of money, promising to give you any sized, and any number of lumps of money, as and when you needed it.

The thing is, the promise; the potential; that ALL matter will be shoveled out, from within the event horison, thus preventing the formation of a singularity.

[Lepton]

My idea is that

Yes...at this point you have an idea,a guess or maybe you can call it a hypothesis.

And my theory

Between the beginning of this thread and here you haven't done any testing so how did this become a theory?

My idea is that

Your "theory" seems to have been demoted.

, under my theory

You vaccilate much?

This idea

Can you please make up your mind. Is this an idea or a theory? I can give you a hint, if it hasn't been tested, it isn't a theory.

If this theory were true

Can you please tell us when you tested this theory or is it still just a guess or hypothesis?

My other theory, for gravity, called the sum of space-time-matter uncertainty theory. J

Which again isn't a theory unless it has been tested.

At this point, your job would be to show us how your guess (or hypothesis) could be falsified and test it against that BEFORE you decided to bandie about the word theory.

[Lepton]

Frog March, with all your recent threads, you really need to get Kip Thorne's "Black Hole and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy". It will explain Black Holes about as well as can be done, without the math, and it will correct a lot of your misconceptions about Black Holes.

Excellent book. Have it on my desk as I type this.

[Frog march]

i like my original idea of the event horizon having a dual existence of a 3d exotic matter sphere and a 2D surface, on which information is stored without time, from the complete history of the BH.
Hawking radiation could just pluck that information off that wall, and release it back into the Universe, but for any systems of information that entered the BH and ended up on that wall, that 2D wall could be seen as just a boundary, from which the information could be accessed from the other side too. Which means that, systems of information, frames of reference etc would just experince passing out of the Universe and into God knows what, I suppose another system of information, like THIS universe. Maybe it would feel like a tunnel(cliche I know).

When I think of this possible, timeless 2D boundary, I think of the infinite complexity you get in fractals, which can also be 2dimensional.

How information on that surface would be stored would also contain the information, of when that information would be returned to the original Universe, which would have to be true or else the same bit of information would be returned over and over again.

[Frog march]

Yes...at this point you have an idea,a guess or maybe you can call it a hypothesis.Between the beginning of this thread and here you haven't done any testing so how did this become a theory? Your "theory" seems to have been demoted.You vaccilate much?Can you please make up your mind. Is this an idea or a theory? I can give you a hint, if it hasn't been tested, it isn't a theory.
Can you please tell us when you tested this theory or is it still just a guess or hypothesis?Which again isn't a theory unless it has been tested.

At this point, your job would be to show us how your guess (or hypothesis) could be falsified and test it against that BEFORE you decided to bandie about the word theory.

yes, I tried not to use the word "theory", but it just kept on slipping out. Sorry about that.

[Lepton]

Yes, that's fine.

that would be like a bank manager with infinite sums of money, promising to give you any sized, and any number of lumps of money, as and when you needed it.

The thing is, the promise; the potential; that ALL matter will be shoveled out, from within the event horison, thus preventing the formation of a singularity.

So your idea is based on the possibility of all matter being radiated away from the black hole? That is exactly why black holes have finite lifetimes. What you seem to be saying is opposite what has been shown mathematically. So as I said, it is now your job to show how your idea can be falsified and then test it before you can call it a theory.

[Lepton]

yes, I tried not to use the word "theory", but it just kept on slipping out. Sorry about that.

Yes, it would be hard not to say the word theory but I understand it was just an idea (and I hope most readers realized the same).

[Frog march]

one test I considered might be something along the lines of measuring the speed of gravity across a black hole, using models of objects in orbit around a black hole, or perhaps if you could find two BHs orbiting each other.

This is because, if one way of looking at a BH, with my IDEA, is that it is all shell, with non-existent time-space within the shell, then gravity might have to go around the shell, to get to the other side, and thus take a little longer.

[Lepton]

one test I considered might be something along the lines of measuring the speed of gravity across a black hole, using models of objects in orbit around a black hole, or perhaps if you could find two BHs orbiting each other.

This is because, if one way of looking at a BH, with my IDEA, is that it is all shell, with non-existent time-space within the shell, then gravity might have to go around the shell, to get to the other side, and thus take a little longer.

At the singularity of a black hole gravitational tides diverge. That test wouldn't work. BTW, you seem to be looking at a singularity through the eyes of physics when physics breaks down as does not apply to a singularity. Maybe a simple mathematical test can falsify your idea? If you want to see objects orbiting a black hole, you need look no further than Sagittarius A which is in the center of our own Milky Way.

ETA - In the Abell cluster about 300 million light years away there are two black holes orbiting one another.

[Frog march]

So your idea is based on the possibility of all matter being radiated away from the black hole? That is exactly why black holes have finite lifetimes. What you seem to be saying is opposite what has been shown mathematically. So as I said, it is now your job to show how your idea can be falsified and then test it before you can call it a theory.

my idea can be looked at in two ways. 1 as an expanding shell, where the shell contains all the matter absorbed into the black hole, and 2. as expanding balls of exotic space-time matter.

The Hawking radiation would just for part of the production of the exotic material, I'm thinking. In the process of the formation of the BHs within the dying star.

The evaporation process would be the only result of Hawking radiation, AFTER the black hole had been created, and after all the stars material had been converted.

And to answer your later post; in my idea, there is no singularity; there is nothing, not even spacetime within the boundaries of the event horizon, so gravity couldn't, I don't think, go through the event horizon.

It may be testable, but you might need to get objects going very close to the BH. Maybe you could do it with the way matter is destroyed near the event horizon, I don't know.

What you need is a detailed computer model of my idea/hypothesis(can I say hypothesis?) and from that you could find out ways to test the model, or evidence to look out for around a black hole.
The physical difference may only be very slight, from the present models of BHs, so it could be difficult.

[Lepton]

my idea can be looked at in two ways. 1 as an expanding shell, where the shell contains all the matter absorbed into the black hole, and 2. as expanding balls of exotic space-time matter.

1 is understandable but 2 is problematic. Does the HR convert the exotic matter before it radiates it away?

The evaporation process would be the only result of Hawking radiation, AFTER the black hole had been created, and after all the stars material had been converted.

Yet you propose that HR is the reason a singularity (which you are looking at wrong) can't form.

And to answer your later post; in my idea, there is no singularity; there is nothing, not even spacetime within the boundaries of the event horizon, so gravity couldn't, I don't think, go through the event horizon.

No, I understand that you are saying there is no singularity. I am saying that you are viewing a singularity incorrectly. Maybe it would be a good idea if you told us what exactly a singularity is (in your opinion) so we can compare it with the accepted definition.

It may be testable

If it isn't testable to put it simply it isn't ever going to be a scientific theory and would either be religion at worst and science fiction at best.

What you need is a detailed computer model of my idea/hypothesis(can I say hypothesis?) and from that you could find out ways to test the model, or evidence to look out for around a black hole.

So provide that model.

[Frog march]

well, my understanding a singularity is that it is a point of zero volume that contains all the matter that is within the black hole, and where the space time is compleatly warped, or perhaps it could be said to have a gradient at complete right angle to the rest of space. I'm not sure how it is put. Perhaps you could say that, as you approach a singularity, space-time becomes completely warped, due to the point being infinitely dense. Because density=mass/volume and the volume is zero.


ANyway, I suppose that my idea is that matter instead of being compressed into a point, is compressed into a 2 dimensional surface(the event horizon), that acts as though it is space-time.

[Lepton]

well, my understanding a singularity is that it is a point of zero volume that contains all the matter that is within the black hole, and where the space time is compleatly warped, or perhaps it could be said to have a gradient at complete right angle to the rest of space. I'm not sure how it is put. Perhaps you could say that, as you approach a singularity, space-time becomes completely warped, due to the point being infinitely dense. Because density=mass/volume and the volume is zero.


ANyway, I suppose that my idea is that matter instead of being compressed into a point, is compressed into a 2 dimensional surface(the event horizon), that acts as though it is space-time.

Your understanding of a singularity is essentially correct BUT you are missing a few salient points and once again you are making the rudimentary error of defining a mathematical equation when dividing by 0. At the singularity ALL physics that are known cease to apply. Mathematically, a singularity is a condition when equations do not give a valid value (such as division by 0). Now by a strict interpretation of the mathematical definition of a singularity, the equation you posted earlier for HR (and the reason for your confusion) shows conclusively that singularities exist.

[Hornblower]

maybe what I was getting at was that, right from the word go, of the formation of a black hole. That the potential for an infinite(well at the limit) amount of energy to be radiated out from the event horizon, that there is no creation of a singularity.

Even if the radiation is quantisized, the matter and energy would be shoveled out, from within the event horizon, leaving the more classical model of what was happening, ie the formation of an event horizon, which matter existing as a shell of exotic space-time-matter.(the second part, obviously ATM). A shell surrounding a volume of space that does not exist.

And then you have a model of what actually would appear to be happening, if you could observe it.
That is, you would get growing spheres of exotic space-time matter that combine, by the trillion, inside a dying star, to form eventually a large sphere of this exotic material, every point within which, could be considered to be ON the event horizon(from the out side anyway). A bit odd I know.

I once read that it was being considered that some sort of exotic material existed, in place of a singularity. Which lead me to consider that I may not be so far off the beaten track.

One thing I like about this idea is, that for Hawking radiation to work, bits of the space-time material just return to being more conventional material, break off and just radiate away.


If something fell into this space-time material, information wise, and from the perspective of the object, although it would be converted to space-time matter, epistemologically or as a sytem of information, or as a reference frame, it perhaps might carry on existing as a piece of matter. So all previous explanations and understandings of what goes on within the event horizon, might STILL apply.
Although I'm not sure about a singularity.....

Can you give us a step-by-step mathematical demonstration of what you are thinking? In the absence of such a demonstration I find nothing but vacuous word salad here.

[Frog march]

Can you give us a step-by-step mathematical demonstration of what you are thinking? In the absence of such a demonstration I find nothing but vacuous word salad here.

ah, the event horizon of ....what is that exactly?

[Hornblower]

ah, the event horizon of ....what is that exactly?

Please answer my question in #27.

[Frog march]

Please answer my question in #27.

the answer is "no"

I didn't think that atm on this board was reserved only for people with the education to work out quantum field equasion etc..


maybe you're on the wrong board mate.